Why force others to live by your religion?

[Jakkaru]

Your first qoute is from the Charter of Virginia. This was issued by the British goverment and had nothing to do with American Constitution. If you read the qoute, it was giving the authority to convert the Indians and nothing more. Of course it will qoute God for this act but this was ultimely a useless qoute since we opposed King George and these charters where no longer valid with the writing of the Articles of Confederation and even more so with the Constitution.

Your second qoute, once again has nothing to do with the founding fathers but is instructions written by the British.

Your third qoute is from the Mayfllower Compact. The foundation of our currenct goverment was not based on the Mayflower Compact in anyway and these seperate laws and compacts like the Virginia Charter, where no longer relavent with the writing of the Constitution.

One qoute does not make up for his other impersonal qoutes. Also, thge way you have posted the qoute is misleading, remember he was writing for an entire group of people even in his perosnal writings, hence the term "we." Saying what he did rejects the King and although it favors Jesus, most of the population of the colonies was indeed Christian, as I said he was writing for a group of people. Also, Atheist may say qoutes involving God but not believe in him or Jesus, ie, "God Bless You" for sneezing, etc.

Who is writing to Thomas in that letter as you have left it unsaid? Also I agree The Bible is an amazing book with great philosophies...but so is "A Christmas Carol" and "A Tale of Two Cities" but that does not make their stories true in the eyes of the reader. Maybe if he said "the most true book" he had ever read.

Samuel Adams was a devout Christian, his stance I can't argue but he was an exception, not a majority.

John Q Adams too was a Christian but like I said, the age of Christian Presidents and influence on the goverment did not come about until the Whig Party which good ole John Q was a member.

Charles Carrol was not a founding father, had no influence on the Constitution and was a member of the Whig Party.

Benjamin Franklin was an agnostic, not a Christian, he believed in a god but not Jesus or his teachings. His qoute here of Babel is also metaphorically. No differant then if I made a qoute about the Garden of eve for comparings sake.

This is a misleading qoute, you don't know who and how many participated int hese so called prayers and for who they where presented to. Many opf the founding fathers Deist remember, they believed in a God but not Jesus nor Christianity so it is more then likely they may have prayed but not to Jesus.

I have never seen this qoute before, gonna have to do some research on it.

Makes no mention of Christianity and could very well be figurative.

Once again another exception.

Patrick Henry tried to get religion INTO the Constitution and failed, he also tried to prevent the Constitution from being ratified and failed. (He wasn anti-federalist.)

Like I said, Patrick Henry had nothing to do with the Constitution and opposed it for it's lack of religion.

John Jay was not present at the First or Second Continental Congress and was although a Christian, against religious tolerance trying to pass laws preventing Deist and Catholics from holding power in the Goverment.

In the literal term, Thomas Jefferson was a Unitarian and not a Christian. He had a hatred of rorganized religions.

(When I learn how to do the qoute thing, I can make my post so much cleaner and neat looking. =D)

 

[Jakkaru]

I see. So then, you favor teaching one religious belief over another?

Not at all. Evolution is taught in Science class. Not in History class. Science is nothing but theories based on data and observations. I had a great science teacher who taught both creationsim and evolution when we got to that stage but evolution is really no differant then teaching us the differance between reptiles and mammals or trying to explain animal behavior. We have no proof that atoms do what they do but its an accepted thoery as is evolution but no one denies atoms.

 

[MikeMcK]

Your first qoute is from the Charter of Virginia. This was issued by the British goverment and had nothing to do with American Constitution. If you read the qoute, it was giving the authority to convert the Indians and nothing more. Of course it will qoute God for this act but this was ultimely a useless qoute since we opposed King George and these charters where no longer valid with the writing of the Articles of Confederation and even more so with the Constitution.

Your second qoute, once again has nothing to do with the founding fathers but is instructions written by the British

Your third qoute is from the Mayfllower Compact. The foundation of our currenct goverment was not based on the Mayflower Compact in anyway and these seperate laws and compacts like the Virginia Charter, where no longer relavent with the writing of the Constitution.

However, all three show the influence of Christianity on the birth of our country, which was my point.

One qoute does not make up for his other impersonal qoutes. Also, thge way you have posted the qoute is misleading, remember he was writing for an entire group of people even in his perosnal writings, hence the term "we." Saying what he did rejects the King and although it favors Jesus, most of the population of the colonies was indeed Christian, as I said he was writing for a group of people. Also, Atheist may say qoutes involving God but not believe in him or Jesus, ie, "God Bless You" for sneezing, etc.

But if he was writing for a group of people and not just individually, then that only goes to emphasize the point, not take away from it.

The only group he's representing is the group assembled at Philadelphia.

Who is writing to Thomas in that letter as you have left it unsaid? Also I agree The Bible is an amazing book with great philosophies...but so is "A Christmas Carol" and "A Tale of Two Cities" but that does not make their stories true in the eyes of the reader. Maybe if he said "the most true book" he had ever read.

The difference is that they do not claim to have based morality or their ideas of liberty on the works of Dickens.

Charles Carrol was not a founding father, had no influence on the Constitution and was a member of the Whig Party.

Actually, Carroll was one of the men who ratified the Constitution and signed the Declaration of Independance.

Benjamin Franklin was an agnostic, not a Christian, he believed in a god but not Jesus or his teachings. His qoute here of Babel is also metaphorically. No differant then if I made a qoute about the Garden of eve for comparings sake.

You're right. Early in his life, Franklin was an agnostic (albeit a weak one). However, just as he abandoned his support of slavery in favor of abolition, so did he abandon his agnosticism to embrace religion. He may not have been a Christian by Biblical standards, but he definitely was sympathetic to Christianity and had a tremendous amount of respect for the word of God, as evidenced by his writings.

In fact, many historians say that his newly aquired religious beliefs led to his abolitionist stance.

This is a misleading qoute, you don't know who and how many participated int hese so called prayers and for who they where presented to.

Doesn't matter. The point isn't the audience, but the speaker.

I have never seen this qoute before, gonna have to do some research on it.

While you're at it, do a little research on your own quotes and see if you can come up with some citations.

Makes no mention of Christianity and could very well be figurative.

What?

Like I said, Patrick Henry had nothing to do with the Constitution and opposed it for it's lack of religion.

Actually, he opposed it because he believed that it gave the federal government too much authority.

In any event, you seem to be hung up on the Constitution. The Constitution was not the singular event around which our country was founded.

John Jay was not present at the First or Second Continental Congress

Jay was elected as a representative from New York. You're right in saying that he did not attend in person, but he did make his presence known through correspondence with that body.

In addition, he was one of the authors of the Federalist Papers.

In the literal term, Thomas Jefferson was a Unitarian and not a Christian. He had a hatred of rorganized religions.

And yet, I've already provided you with numerous examples of Jefferson's own words that show his respect for God's word and the influence it had on him.

 

[calidog]

Before you all say "Noone makes you go to church," hear me out.

Given that freedom of religion is guarenteed in the Constitution, and the founding fathers wrote in the Treaty of Tripoli that America is not a Christian nation, there are several aspects that do not seem justified to me.

Marraige is one. Why define marraige from the Christian viewpoint? The Mormons for example believe in polygamy, so shouldn't freedom of religion allow them to do just that? Also, if I have no relgion, why should I be bound by your scripture regarding homosexuals? I don't see the Jews forcing you to not eat bacon.

Then there's right to die. If I have a chronic disease and I'm gonna die in a few months of agony regardless, why use legal action to stop me? If you don't believe it, you don't have to do it.

Then there's creationism in the science classroom. If we're going to teach your holy text's version, then we should have to teach every religions version, since none of it is actually verifiyable or supported by empiracle evidence. Also, showing evolution to be wrong does not make your version right.

Then there's prayer in school. Why must a designated time be set aside for prayer? You don't see me coming to church and demanding to be able to teach you science. If you demand your prayer said in schools, then every religions prayer must be, and there isnt time, nor is it the place for that. Can't you just keep it in your house or church?

Finally, and this is more of a gripe than a valid question (so I appologize), but what is up with the whole "War on Christmas" nonsence? I know its majorily the extremists, but boycotting a store that says "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas" to the point where it has to switch back seems pretty absurd. Happy Holidays includes you, so I don't see the problem. That would be like me starting a speech with "Welcome guests" and the caucasions getting angry because I didn't say "Greetings whites."

Basically my question boils down to "Doesn't legislating your religion into law violate freedom of religion?"

Fear not, be patient.
Soon, the world will be ruled by the ungodly and unbelieving; for a short while.

 

[Harlan Norris]

Before you all say "Noone makes you go to church," hear me out.

Given that freedom of religion is guarenteed in the Constitution, and the founding fathers wrote in the Treaty of Tripoli that America is not a Christian nation, there are several aspects that do not seem justified to me.

Marraige is one. Why define marraige from the Christian viewpoint? The Mormons for example believe in polygamy, so shouldn't freedom of religion allow them to do just that? Also, if I have no relgion, why should I be bound by your scripture regarding homosexuals? I don't see the Jews forcing you to not eat bacon.

Then there's right to die. If I have a chronic disease and I'm gonna die in a few months of agony regardless, why use legal action to stop me? If you don't believe it, you don't have to do it.

Then there's creationism in the science classroom. If we're going to teach your holy text's version, then we should have to teach every religions version, since none of it is actually verifiyable or supported by empiracle evidence. Also, showing evolution to be wrong does not make your version right.

Then there's prayer in school. Why must a designated time be set aside for prayer? You don't see me coming to church and demanding to be able to teach you science. If you demand your prayer said in schools, then every religions prayer must be, and there isnt time, nor is it the place for that. Can't you just keep it in your house or church?

Finally, and this is more of a gripe than a valid question (so I appologize), but what is up with the whole "War on Christmas" nonsence? I know its majorily the extremists, but boycotting a store that says "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas" to the point where it has to switch back seems pretty absurd. Happy Holidays includes you, so I don't see the problem. That would be like me starting a speech with "Welcome guests" and the caucasions getting angry because I didn't say "Greetings whites."

Basically my question boils down to "Doesn't legislating your religion into law violate freedom of religion?"

Well,in the first place it is not possible to force a soul to accept Jesus. Using legislation to cleanse a corrupt nation or group in that nation,will not cause souls to be saved. Neither will it make a sinner consider their condition. One must first seek God. By that I mean,they must first seriouly consider that there is a God. All humanity is in need of salvation. Because there is a God,and God has given us a law to follow,which we do not follow. Err in one thing and we have broken all. We can't reach God by our own good works. This is where Jesus comes in. We must accept the salvation offered by God through Jesus. Salvation from what? From hell. Hell is the penalty for a life of sin. We can't help sinning,but we can be forgiven. That forgiveness,makes us acceptable to God. I personally do not think it is possible to change a heart through legislation,that legislation is the product of our self rightousness. We think we are in a position to judge. Even if one was able to cause another to live a life of sinlessness,the sins already in their life would prevent them from entering heaven. For this reason I do not vote for or against moral issues. It does no good.

 

[MikeMcK]

Not at all. Evolution is taught in Science class. Not in History class. Science is nothing but theories based on data and observations.

If data is nothing but theories based on data and observations, then why not present a balanced view, letting students see the data and observation behind both?

Why discriminate against creationism?

 

[eddie123]

However, all three show the influence of Christianity on the birth of our country, which was my point.



But if he was writing for a group of people and not just individually, then that only goes to emphasize the point, not take away from it.

The only group he's representing is the group assembled at Philadelphia.



The difference is that they do not claim to have based morality or their ideas of liberty on the works of Dickens.



Actually, Carroll was one of the men who ratified the Constitution and signed the Declaration of Independance.



You're right. Early in his life, Franklin was an agnostic (albeit a weak one). However, just as he abandoned his support of slavery in favor of abolition, so did he abandon his agnosticism to embrace religion. He may not have been a Christian by Biblical standards, but he definitely was sympathetic to Christianity and had a tremendous amount of respect for the word of God, as evidenced by his writings.

In fact, many historians say that his newly aquired religious beliefs led to his abolitionist stance.



Doesn't matter. The point isn't the audience, but the speaker.



While you're at it, do a little research on your own quotes and see if you can come up with some citations.



What?



Actually, he opposed it because he believed that it gave the federal government too much authority.

In any event, you seem to be hung up on the Constitution. The Constitution was not the singular event around which our country was founded.



Jay was elected as a representative from New York. You're right in saying that he did not attend in person, but he did make his presence known through correspondence with that body.

In addition, he was one of the authors of the Federalist Papers.



And yet, I've already provided you with numerous examples of Jefferson's own words that show his respect for God's word and the influence it had on him.

The difference is that they do not claim to have based morality or their ideas of liberty on the works of Dickens.

I understood that the works of Dickens are attributed to have had a major influence on British social policy and legislation in the 19th Century - which is at least along the same lines.

 

[MikeMcK]

I understood that the works of Dickens are attributed to have had a major influence on British social policy and legislation in the 19th Century - which is at least along the same lines.

It's true. Dickens was a hugely influential author. Many of his writings are deep in Christian theme and imagery.

 

[Zeena]

God says "gay's are bad"

And where does He say this?
In the Bible?

Funny, I've never read that..
Would you mind quoting Scripture so I may believe these words?

You say God says.. But did He really?
Here is something He does say along these lines tho..

James 3:12
Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.

Matthew 12:33
Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

Luke 3:9
And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Notice the Lord never ceases to call us a tree..
And He even goes on to say we cannot 'help' but issue forth the fruit of ourr being..

Romans 1:28-32
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

If our being is in Christ, the fruit also will be good!

God holds the world together by the Word of His Power..
Who are we to rebel against Him who has given us life?

As a person withdrawls from the Lord, so also He withdrawls from them, 'till they are left utterly corrupt and wanting..
Perhaps then they will return..?

 

[Umaro]

"Why discriminate against creationism?"

Because it is not science. Creationism cannot stand up to the scientific method. If those groups really wanted to put Creationism in schools, they would have to make a hypothesis, test said hypothesis, examine the data and results, then either declair it right or wrong. As it stands now, they just want direct injection into the science room. And it's not both sides. It's two sides. Shouldn't you argue that every other religion's creation story be taught?

 

[Robinsegg]

"Why discriminate against creationism?"

Because it is not science. Creationism cannot stand up to the scientific method. If those groups really wanted to put Creationism in schools, they would have to make a hypothesis, test said hypothesis, examine the data and results, then either declair it right or wrong. As it stands now, they just want direct injection into the science room. And it's not both sides. It's two sides. Shouldn't you argue that every other religion's creation story be taught?

There was a post earlier on the merits of "Intelligent Design" over straight Creationism . . . thus allowing students to form their own opinions on the identity of the Designer (including the Flying Spaghetti Monster another poster enjoys). That would take care of the other creation stories problem.

As for ID not being testable . . . I'm sorry, but I never once saw anybody's account where they actually duplicated a jump from one Family to create an entirely different, new one. If you can relate such data, I'd be pleased to read it. Otherwise, you have observation of fossils and of living creatures, but you have no testing and no replication for the Theory of Evolution, either.

Rachel

 

[MikeMcK]

"Why discriminate against creationism?"

Because it is not science. Creationism cannot stand up to the scientific method. If those groups really wanted to put Creationism in schools, they would have to make a hypothesis, test said hypothesis, examine the data and results, then either declair it right or wrong. As it stands now, they just want direct injection into the science room. And it's not both sides. It's two sides. Shouldn't you argue that every other religion's creation story be taught?

First of all, nobody is suggesting that anyone's religion's creation story be taught.

We're simply asking for equal time to make a case that the Universe had an intelligent designer. That's all.

Second, there certainly is more scientific evidence to teach that the Universe had an intelligent designer than there is to teach that something came out of nothing and that we're all here as mere products of random chance.

 

[Zeena]

"Why discriminate against creationism?"

Because it is not science. Creationism cannot stand up to the scientific method. If those groups really wanted to put Creationism in schools, they would have to make a hypothesis, test said hypothesis, examine the data and results, then either declair it right or wrong. As it stands now, they just want direct injection into the science room. And it's not both sides. It's two sides. Shouldn't you argue that every other religion's creation story be taught?

THE HISTORIC ALLIANCE
OF CHRISTIANITY AND SCIENCE

By Kenneth Richard Samples
The influential British mathematician-philosopher Bertrand Russell once remarked, "I am as firmly convinced that religions do harm as I am that they are untrue." In his popular and controversial work "Why I Am Not A Christian," Russell leveled the charge that Christianity, in particular, has served as an opponent of all intellectual progress, especially progress in science.1 Since Russell's time, other outspoken advocates of a naturalistic worldview have echoed Russell's claim, asserting that Christianity is incompatible with-even hostile to-the findings of modern science. Many in our culture view Christianity as unscientific, at best, anti-scientific at worst.
Conflicts between scientific theories and the Christian faith have arisen through the centuries, to be sure. However, the level of conflict has often been exaggerated, and Christianity's positive influence on scientific progress is seldom acknowledged.2 I would like to turn the tables by arguing for Christianity's compatibility with - and furtherance of scientific endeavor and arguing against the compatibility of naturalism and science.
(1) The intellectual climate that gave rise to modern science (roughly three centuries ago) was decisively shaped by Christianity.3 Not only were most of the founding fathers of science themselves devout Christians (including Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, and Pascal),4 but the Christian worldview provided a basis for modern science both to emerge and to flourish. Christian theism affirmed that an infinite, eternal, and personal God created the world ex nihilo. The creation, reflecting the rational nature of the Creator, was therefore orderly and uniform. Further, humankind was uniquely created in God's image (Gen. 1:26-7), thus capable of reasoning and of discovering the intelligibility of the created order. In effect, the Christian worldview supported the underlying principles that made scientific inquiry possible and desirable.
Eminent historian and philosopher of science Stanley Jaki has argued that science was "stillborn" in other great civilizations outside Europe because of prevailing ideas that stifled scientific development, e.g., a cyclical approach to time, an astrological approach to the heavens, metaphysical views that either deified nature (animism) or denied it (idealism).5
(2) The principles underlying the scientific method (testability, verification/falsification) arise from the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. The experimental method was clearly nurtured by Christian doctrine.6 Because the Christian founders of modern science believed that the heavens genuinely declare the glory of God (Ps. 19: 1), they possessed both the necessary conceptual framework and the spiritual incentive to boldly explore nature's mysteries. According to Christian theism, God has disclosed Himself in two dynamic ways: through special revelation (God's redemptive actions recorded in the Bible - "God's book") and through general revelation (God's creative actions discoverable in nature - "God's world"). Puritan scientists in England and in America viewed the study of science as a sacred attempt to "think God's thoughts after Him."7
While Christians have plenty of room to grow in the virtues of discernment, reflection, and vigorous analysis, the wisdom literature of the Old Testament consistently exhorts God's people to exercise them, and the New Testament teaches the same message (see Col. 2:8; 1 Thes. 5:2 1; 1 Jn. 4: 1). These principles served as the backdrop for the emerging experimental method.
(3) Some of the philosophical presuppositions foundational to the study of science include these: the existence of an objectively real world, the comprehensibility of that world, the reliability of sense perception and human rationality, the orderliness and uniformity of nature, and the validity of mathematics and logic.8 These necessary preconditions of science are rooted in Christian theism's claims of an infinite, eternal, and personal creator who has carefully ordered the universe and provided man with a mind that corresponds to the universe's intelligibility. This Christian schema served as the intellectual breeding ground for modern science. It sustained science and enabled it to flourish. How does naturalism compare? Does it explain or provide fertile ground for the birth and progress of science?
Consider how a naturalist might answer the following questions: How can a world that is the product of blind, non-purposeful processes account for and justify the crucial conditions that make the scientific enterprise even possible? How does naturalism justify the inductive method, assumptions about the uniformity of nature, and the existence of abstract, non-empirical entities such as numbers, propositions, and the laws of logic if the world is the product of a mindless accident? According to naturalism, isn't even the human mind one accident in a series of many accidents?9 If so, how can we have any confidence it steers us toward truth? How could such a concept as truth even be conceived?
Christian philosopher Greg L. Bahnsen argues not only that naturalism fails to justify its underlying presuppositions but also that naturalists illegitimately rest their scientific endeavors on Christian theistic principles. Naturalists borrow from Christianity. Consider this insightful observation by physicist and popular author Paul Davies:
People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.10
One may wonder if science would have arisen had the dominant metaphysical views of the time been naturalistic and materialistic. Would naturalism have been able to sustain the scientific enterprise that Christian theism generated? The eminent Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga gives his opinion: "Modern science was conceived, and born, and flourished in the matrix of Christian theism. Only liberal doses of self-deception and double-think, I believe, will permit it to flourish in the context of Darwinian naturalism."11
(4) The prevailing scientific notions of big bang cosmology and the emerging anthropic principle seem uniquely compatible with Christian theism. Since the universe had a singular beginning, we have a logical right and reason to inquire about its cause. Gottfried Leibniz's classic question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" seems even more provocative in light of what we now know about the big bang universe. Is it more reasonable to believe that the universe came into existence from nothing by nothing or that, as the Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"?

Source

 

[Zeena]

Christianity and the Scientific Enterprise (I)

Dr. Charles Thaxton

As a student in the 1960's I remember the derision heaped upon Christianity whenever professors or students mentioned it in the classroom. Serious thinkers, it seemed, had replaced mythical Christian doctrine with a far superior, more scientific view of reality. Christianity and Science, were seen, necessarily, as in conflict.

Like most other Christian students of the time, I remained silent, intimidated by the superior knowledge of my mentors. Only several years later did I learn to discern the difference between science, and metaphysical naturalism masquerading as science.
While at Harvard in 1971, I had the good fortune of hearing a visiting lecture series conducted by Professor Rejer Hooykaas, a highly regarded historian of science.
Hooykaas presented, what was to me, a new and provocative argument. The Dutch professor maintained that Christianity had played a vital role in fostering the development of modern science.[1]
I remember my reaction well. As a Christian I wanted to believe him; as a scientist, I was yet skeptical. Hadn't many learned scholars already dismissed Christianity as an incredible intellectual position? Surely Hooykaas was mistaken. Perhaps, I misheard him? Though intrigued, I simply could not accept an argument that ran counter the dominant perspective of my education to that point. I had a Christian heart, but, as yet, a pagan mind.
Nevertheless, Hooykaas' argument fascinated me. I began a reading program to examine his claims. I found other historians and philosophers of science who had recognized that a distinctly Christian world view had inspired early scientific investigation. P. E. Hodgson in reviewing Stanley Jaki's Science and Creation said: "Although we seldom recognize it, scientific research requires certain basic beliefs about the order and rationality of matter, and its accessibility to the human mind . . . they came to us in their full force through the Judeo-Christian belief in an omnipotent God, creator and sustainer of all things. In such a world view it becomes sensible to try and understand the world, and this is the fundamental reason science developed as it did in the Middle Ages in Christian Europe, culminating in the brilliant achievements of the seventeenth century."[2] A. N. Whitehead added: "In the first place, there can be no living science unless there is a widespread instinctive conviction in the existence of an Order Of Things. And, in particular, of an Order Of Nature . . . The inexpugnable belief that every detailed occurrence can be correlated with its antecedents in a perfectly definite manner . . . must come from the medieval insistence on the rationality of God . . . My explanation is that the faith in the possibility of science, generated antecedently to the development of modern scientific theory, is an unconscious derivative from medieval theology."[3] According to Loren Eisley, the origin of modern science was due to: "The sheer act of faith that the universe possessed order and could be interpreted by rational minds . . . The philosophy of experimental science . . . began its discoveries and made use of its method in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a Creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation. The experimental method succeeded beyond man's wildest dreams but the faith that brought it into being owes something to the Christian conception of the nature of God. It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption."[4]
Perhaps, Christianity had played a greater role in the development of modern science than I had imagined. I wanted to know more. If the Christian concept of creation in the late Middle Ages had motivated scientific inquiry, what could have discouraged it before then? In Europe, at least, the answer was clear.
The dominant view of reality in medieval Europe was essentially Greek, having been coopted by the Church and adapted for Christian service. It offered no motivation to investigate nature by observation and experiment. To the Greeks, reality consisted of forms and essences, not material things. In a world where ideals subordinate material reality observing "what is" becomes less important than reasoning "what ought to be."
The Greeks viewed nature as a living organism imbued with attributes of divinity. Nature was eternal and self-existent, not created. Nature was considered impregnated with final causes, with divine purposes and as such was self revealing. They had only to be apprehended by the mind, and, hence, the significance placed on intuiting axioms and principles from which all particular truths could be derived by deductive reasoning. It followed from this view that Greek knowledge of nature and reality rested on the authority of the "system builders": Euclid in geometry, and Plato and Aristotle in philosophy, etc. As a corollary to the Greek view of truth, sensory experience did not lead to new knowledge. It could only provide illustrations for what was already known through reason. Sensory experience was no more relevant to the Greek science of nature than it was to Euclidean geometry. Therefore Greek science of nature was never experimental. The Greeks' conception of nature and reality led them to distrust the senses.
The medieval world picture inherited from the Greeks was that of a vast hierarchy of beings extending from the deity in the Empyrean heaven at the outer edge of the universe, through a graded series of angels inhabiting the ten concentric crystalline spheres surrounding the central earth, to the levels of men, animals and plants on the earth itself which formed the system's cosmic center.
A sharp qualitative distinction separated the terrestrial and celestial domains of the universe. Not only were the two domains composed of different types of materials, they had different motions. The terrestrial environs consisted of earth, air, fire and water, each with rectilinear motion which had a beginning and an end. The heavenly bodies (above the moon) were composed of a more perfect fifth essence, with eternal circular motion.
According to ancient mechanics, motion was maintained only as long as there was a constantly applied mover. As Butterfield said, "A universe constructed on the mechanics of Aristotle had the door half-way open for spirits already . . . Intelligence had to roll the planetary spheres around."[5]
Medieval Christians were attracted to this Greek picture of the world. An authority-based
hierarchical system with God in his Empyrean above the moon was easy to visualize. The angels mentioned in the Bible could push the planets around-not a hard job since celestial bodies were made of the very light fifth essence. And what could promote the importance of man any better than this Greek view of man at the center of the universe? What psychological power such a view commanded. The conception suggested that man was important in a truly cosmic sense.
The linchpin for this medieval cosmology was Aristotle's view of motion through constantly applied force. But as Butterfield remarked, "It was supremely difficult to escape from the Aristotelian doctrine (of motion) by merely observing things more closely . . . it required a different kind of thinking-cap, a transposition in the mind of the scientist himself."[6]
Late Medieval Christianity supplied just such a transposition of thought through a greater familiarity with Scripture, and an emphasis on the doctrine of creation. Through the advent of the printing press the ideas of Scripture were much more widely disseminated. People could discover for themselves that both Old and New Testaments regarded the material world as substantial, real and good. A premium was placed on the value and essential trustworthiness of sensory experience, especially in some of the more prominent authority based passages. For example, after Moses reiterated the Ten Commandments, he reminds the people that he is not the authority. The Commandments on stone only solidified the message all the people heard. Says Moses, "Ye heard the voice."[7] The Hebrews had an empirical test for identifying a false prophet.[8] Saint John introduces his First Epistle with an empirical emphasis: "We have heard," "we have seen," "our hands have handled."[9] Jesus said to the doubting ones after His Resurrection, "handle me and see."[10]
For many centuries the Church had openly acknowledged God and His creation. Yet the Medieval view of nature remained essentially Greek. But with greater appreciation for the value of sensory experience within a created universe, more and more people began to think through the implications of belief in creation for their view of nature. According to M. B. Foster; "The modern investigators of nature were the first to take seriously in their science the Christian doctrine that nature is created . . ."[11] (Emphasis his).
A created world is contingent upon the will of the Creator, and need not necessarily conform to our a priori reasoning. These early scientists emphasized observation using the five senses and experiment, in order to gain new knowledge.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626) maintained that finding new facts required new methods. He set out to reformulate scientific method to give the empirical, inductive process a more central place. Part of the genius of modern empirical science was precisely its use of recurring natural events to provide observable checks on hypotheses. No more would scientists content themselves with speculative reason unchecked by sensory experience.
Bacon also repudiated the Greek search for final causes in nature, which he maintained were inscrutable to man. Therefore, "inquiry into final causes is barren, and like a virgin consecrated to God produces nothing."[12] According to Bacon, the Greeks were simply wrong in their approach to nature because they failed to regard it as created. Creation may have been a mere doctrine in earlier centuries, but to many in the late Middle Ages it supplied the impetus to rethink the ancients' view of the natural world.
Realizing the implications of a created nature opened the door to emphasizing the importance of sensory experience. Empirical science follows directly from belief in a created and therefore contingent nature. Not until the end of the 17th century would Newton reach a new understanding of physical reality. In the meantime, a certain sense of delight and fascination came in exposing cracks in the Aristotelian edifice.
The voyages of discovery in the 15th century not only opened up the New World with new trade routes, they gave empirical proof that ancient knowledge was both incomplete and in many instances wrong. The explorers contradicted the ancients by experience. They, for example, did not fall off the edge of the earth when sailing uncharted waters.
Once a "transposition" in thinking occurred allowing for meaningful experiential checks on ideas, the new empiricists found the universe replete with evidence repudiating the ancient cosmology.
In 1572, a new star appeared in the skies over Europe. The star remained visible for a year and a half, even in the daytime. The star hovered clearly above the moon. Yet, according to established Aristotelian views the heavens were supposed to be changeless. Some of the learned professors refused to acknowledge the new star, calling it an optical illusion. But for everyone else it was clear evidence the Aristotelian system was in deep trouble. What's more, the evidence was empirical.
Another blow to the Aristotelian picture came with the comet of 1577. The comet not only signaled more change in the heavens, but since it must have passed through the supposedly impenetrable crystalline spheres its appearance contradicted Aristotle's view of the heavens. Many, such as Tycho Brahe, were encouraged to actually deny existence to the crystalline orbs.
Copernicus had taken the bold first step, refashioning the world picture. He put the sun at the center in his system, thus making the earth just one of the planets. Copernicus did keep to circular motion for the planets, however. Later, Kepler would discover on empirical grounds the orbits were elliptical.
By the end of the 17th century Newton had synthesized the work of Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Kepler, and Galileo by achieving a unity of heaven and earth, with the same substances in the heavens and earth, all equally subject to mathematical analysis. Newton banished the Aristotelian terrestrial/celestial dichotomy that had dominated intellectual thought for nearly two thousand years. The modern scientific enterprise was now ready to explore by the senses combined with mathematics the structure and ongoing operation of the universe. Christian thought had done much to inspire this new form of inquiry. As for my own study I concur with C. F. Von Weizsacker's conclusion that modern science is a "legacy, I might even have said, a child of Christianity."[13]

Source

 

[Umaro]

"teach that something came out of nothing and that we're all here as mere products of random chance."

Evolution does not address where everything came from initially, and is not a random process.

 

[ebia]

There was a post earlier on the merits of "Intelligent Design" over straight Creationism . . . thus allowing students to form their own opinions on the identity of the Designer (including the Flying Spaghetti Monster another poster enjoys). That would take care of the other creation stories problem.

As for ID not being testable . . . I'm sorry, but I never once saw anybody's account where they actually duplicated a jump from one Family to create an entirely different, new one. If you can relate such data, I'd be pleased to read it. Otherwise, you have observation of fossils and of living creatures, but you have no testing and no replication for the Theory of Evolution, either.

Rachel

Testing, in this context, doesn't mean being able to reproduce the event. It means being able to make useful predictions about what we should and should not find, and then looking to see if those predictions bear up.

The problem with ID as science is that it doesn't make testable predictions. Common Ancestry in the form of twin nested heirarchies I assume that's what you are describing above) does.

ID may or may not be true, but it isn't science unless it makes testable predictions.

 

[Zeena]

"teach that something came out of nothing and that we're all here as mere products of random chance."

Evolution does not address where everything came from initially, and is not a random process.

Yes, in fact God does..

Now WHERE is your question?

Hrmm?

 

[Umaro]

"Yes, in fact God does..Now WHERE is your question?"

To me, saying God made the universe is the same as answering the question with the word Magic. I don't think either exists, and there is nothing except the Bible to show God did it.

 

[Zeena]

"Yes, in fact God does..Now WHERE is your question?"

To me, saying God made the universe is the same as answering the question with the word Magic. I don't think either exists, and there is nothing except the Bible to show God did it.

It's a Word of Power, not magic.

There is plenty besides the Holy Scriptures which inform us as to His Word of Power, where He spoke creation into existance.

For one, we cannot comprehend what is from what is not, we cannot search out the end from the beginning. Nor can we fathom the mysteries of life! There is obviously a Power behind the creation which we cannot wrap our little minds around!

Ecclesiastes 3:11
He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

Ecclesiastes 11:5
As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.

John 3:8
The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

We are to examine the creation in Light of all He has said.
The proper question to ask is always "WHY"

Now, if you do not want to accept this witness you do not have to! But this is not a debate forum..

 

[McWilliams]

Do you trust science over the words of the God that created science? Unbelievable!
Anything written in the bible is true and trustworthy, over all!
The most common problem is that the bible is not being read and studied; even as it instructs!