Why some don't trust science

[juvenissun]

Unless, of course, they're right and that's the proper way of reading Genesis.

Of course, we are all taking chances. We are betting it with our future welfare.

Are you a computer scientist (sorry, can't remember well). If you are, then you know a minor glitch in a program could be serious. If you bet on evolution, you better examine it really carefully rather than accept what most people said. I did that evaluation to my best ability. And I think it causes more major problems than accepting creation. I reject it not because evolution has unsolved problems, but because of the concern on the welfare of myself.

 

[Willtor]

Of course, we are all taking chances. We are betting it with our future welfare.

Are you a computer scientist (sorry, can't remember well). If you are, then you know a minor glitch in a program could be serious. If you bet on evolution, you better examine it really carefully rather than accept what most people said. I did that evaluation to my best ability. And I think it causes more major problems than accepting creation. I reject it not because evolution has unsolved problems, but because of the concern on the welfare of myself.

Yes, I'm a computer scientist. But in the analogy between origin ideas and computer programs, if evolution is a buggy program, creationism doesn't compile. Although evolution has holes and unexplained dimensions, creationism is debunked.

That said, one reads the Bible as honestly as one can. Nevertheless, one is sometimes wrong. Consider all of the literal interpretations that came before: these were interpretations that were held honestly by honest people -- good Christians. They were wrong. Your literal interpretation is very different from theirs, so I know you agree. I don't think their souls are forfeit because they were wrong.

 

[driewerf]

Of course, we are all taking chances. We are betting it with our future welfare.

Are you a computer scientist (sorry, can't remember well). If you are, then you know a minor glitch in a program could be serious. If you bet on evolution, you better examine it really carefully rather than accept what most people said. I did that evaluation to my best ability. And I think it causes more major problems than accepting creation. I reject it not because evolution has unsolved problems, but because of the concern on the welfare of myself.

Bet?
Do you really think that all those universities teach evolution as a bet? Do you really think that scientists accept evolution as a bet? Never heard of weighing evidence?

 

[USincognito]

{snip}

This is the Origins Theology subform. It's for Christians only. You need to head over to the Crevo subform.

 

[juvenissun]

Bet?
Do you really think that all those universities teach evolution as a bet? Do you really think that scientists accept evolution as a bet? Never heard of weighing evidence?

If you consider religion into the content of evolution, it is indeed a bet. If you do not consider religion but only evolution, then you are not in the game.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes, I'm a computer scientist. But in the analogy between origin ideas and computer programs, if evolution is a buggy program, creationism doesn't compile. Although evolution has holes and unexplained dimensions, creationism is debunked.

That said, one reads the Bible as honestly as one can. Nevertheless, one is sometimes wrong. Consider all of the literal interpretations that came before: these were interpretations that were held honestly by honest people -- good Christians. They were wrong. Your literal interpretation is very different from theirs, so I know you agree. I don't think their souls are forfeit because they were wrong.

To faithful people, different interpretation on Bible verses only means a different recognition to God. There is basically no right or wrong. However, if the interpretation involved science, then there could be right or wrong. Even this right or wrong does not affect the salvation, I still think it represents the personal understanding to our God. So, if one understood God wrong, it is not a good thing. And I think it could be resulted in less or much less reward from God, depends on the consequence of the erroneous understanding.

Creationism is not a compiler (of science). Faulty program like evolution can not be compiled. Creationism is a better algorithm.

 

[Mallon]

This is the Origins Theology subform. It's for Christians only. You need to head over to the Crevo subform.

Meh. I won't tell.

 

[shinbits]

Hey, go to the root of the problem - destroy the PR office. Could there be times where a scientist is over-eager to report a finding in hopes of a little notoriety, or a university is over-eager to release the info in hopes of a some notoriety for the school? What's the purpose of scientific PR?

publicity brings in funding for more research

 

[Willtor]

To faithful people, different interpretation on Bible verses only means a different recognition to God. There is basically no right or wrong. However, if the interpretation involved science, then there could be right or wrong. Even this right or wrong does not affect the salvation, I still think it represents the personal understanding to our God. So, if one understood God wrong, it is not a good thing. And I think it could be resulted in less or much less reward from God, depends on the consequence of the erroneous understanding.

Creationism is not a compiler (of science). Faulty program like evolution can not be compiled. Creationism is a better algorithm.

I think there are right and wrong interpretations -- and I think faithful people can disagree, honestly. As for science's part, would St. Basil, for example, think that you were rolling the dice with your interpretation that took Louis Pasteur's experiments into account? I know many would criticize your treatment of the earth as an oblate spheroid, as though two people could stand at the antipodes. St. Augustine had to deal with such Christians.

As to compilers and such, it might be better not to try to extend my analogy. Further, I'm not really interested in arguing the merits of evolution. I'm willing to suppose it's bunk for the purposes of the discussion of hermeneutics. But that doesn't validate creationism. And it certainly doesn't validate the modern creationist interpretation of Genesis.