YECs, TEs, AEs and stuff

[Critias]

When science class starts answering the question, how does gravity work with the answer, God did it, it might be time to leave the country frankly.



And that, frankly, is a lie.

Would you object to science class starting its teaching on evolution saying in the beginning God created this universe and the first life, bacteria(or whatever)? Through evolution bacteria evolved and eventually mankind was here.

 

[notto]

Would you object to science class starting its teaching on evolution saying in the beginning God created this universe and the first life, bacteria(or whatever)? Through evolution bacteria evolved and eventually mankind was here.

Yes because that is not provable nor based on evidence. It would be a religious statement based on faith and nothing more.

Would you object to science class starting its teaching on evolution by saying that there is no God or inserting a statement about a different deity from a different belief system creating the first life?

 

[notto]

Then, do you support that we ought to act ashamed of God when we are in school therefore being quiet and not speaking of Him there?

I am glad that you feel you need to share God in Sunday School.

If all science can do is provide natural causes for observed phenomena, then common descent isn't science because it has not been observed but rather asserted.

And why can't science give credit to God? It gives credit to man. Are they that ashamed of God that they must be silent about Him in certain places?

It is sad that we have Christians who feel they need to be quiet about God in public and only have a private relationship with God. Only expressing their beliefs in Him in appropriate places: Sunday School, Christian forums, etc. It is sad that Christians feel science shouldn't give God glory, shouldn't give God credit and instead focus on man and give man the credit and the glory.

Science has no problem saying look at what man has achieved, look at what man has done. TEs here support this, yet they do not support God being included since it is He who created all this and it is for His Glory, not mans.

Your still not listening. Science class by definition can only talk about what we can observe naturally or through physical evidence and natural causes. That is the definition of science. Do we give the glory to God for the debilitating diseases there as well? How about crippling viruses? What about chemistry and physics? Do we give glory to God for covelant bonds?

Science class is silent about God because it isn't the appropriate place to discuss it. You are misrepresenting the postion of TE's (and scientists in general). That you continue to do this and to try to make our motives out as something that they are not is rather uncharitable.

Your last paragraph is actually quite amusing. That you attribute these motivations to another Christian shows that you truly don't understand science or the view of those Christians who accept it. It seems that no matter how many times it is explained to you that this is not the case, you simply turn around and repeat it.

Let us know when you are willing to listen and accept that the motivations for how science is approached by others is exactly what they say it is and not your own misrepresentations. You seem to basically trying to say that somehow you are better Christian than others who actually understand science and what the purpose of science class is (and what it is not).

Trust me when I say to you that your mischaracterizations of my beliefs are far from reality.

You are doing a disservice to the very Christians and those that teach and do science that you are trying to address. Misrepresentation and applying false motives to those you wish to address won't do anything to help us see your point of view. If anything, it shows that you don't want to really address the topic at all in a truthful way.

See you around.

 

[Critias]

Your still not listening. Science class by definition can only talk about what we can observe naturally or through physical evidence and natural causes. That is the definition of science. Do we give the glory to God for the debilitating diseases there as well? How about crippling viruses? What about chemistry and physics? Do we give glory to God for covelant bonds?

Science class is silent about God because it isn't the appropriate place to discuss it. You are misrepresenting the postion of TE's (and scientists in general). That you continue to do this and to try to make our motives out as something that they are not is rather uncharitable.

Your last paragraph is actually quite amusing. That you attribute these motivations to another Christian shows that you truly don't understand science or the view of those Christians who accept it. It seems that no matter how many times it is explained to you that this is not the case, you simply turn around and repeat it.

Let us know when you are willing to listen and accept that the motivations for how science is approached by others is exactly what they say it is and not your own misrepresentations. You seem to basically trying to say that somehow you are better Christian than others who actually understand science and what the purpose of science class is (and what it is not).

Trust me when I say to you that your mischaracterizations of my beliefs are far from reality.

You are doing a disservice to the very Christians and those that teach and do science that you are trying to address. Misrepresentation and applying false motives to those you wish to address won't do anything to help us see your point of view. If anything, it shows that you don't want to really address the topic at all in a truthful way.

See you around.

So you agree that God only belongs in religion and no where else?

 

[notto]

So you agree that God only belongs in religion and no where else?

Your still not listening.

 

[Critias]

Science class is silent about God because it isn't the appropriate place to discuss it.

Look, maybe I am wrong, maybe I am just ignorant.

In my view, there is no inappropriate place to discuss God.

 

[notto]

Look, maybe I am wrong, maybe I am just ignorant.

In my view, there is no inappropriate place to discuss God.
[/size][/color][/font]

So then you agree that we should talk about God and give God the glory in all classes? Chemistry, political science, home ec, and phys ed? Band class? Computer class? If we don't, isn't it celebrating man's acheivements?

It is sad that Christians feel band class and home economics and computer class shouldn't give God glory, shouldn't give God credit and instead focus on man and give man the credit and the glory.

 

[Critias]

So then you agree that we should talk about God and give God the glory in all classes? Chemistry, political science, home ec, and phys ed? Band class? If we don't, isn't it celebrating man's acheivements?

If we are talking about how we have our talents, then it is by God that we have our talents. So, in that sense, I would give God the Glory. What I have is not because of me, it is because of what God has given me.

In science, when discussing origins, it has a lot to do with God. Science usually gets to the point that something has always existed out there for the big bang, then abiogenesis and then evolution to all have begun. Nothing doesn't create something. It is a scientific fact. What a great place to give God glory. Instead, it is focuses on what man has accomplished.

I suppose that I am just a stupid creationists who desires to see God receiving glory.

 

[notto]

If we are talking about how we have our talents, then it is by God that we have our talents. So, in that sense, I would give God the Glory. What I have is not because of me, it is because of what God has given me.

So why do you focus on science class? Why don't you rail against those who teach physical education for not giving God the glory?

Science by definition either needs to answer with a natural cause or a 'we don't know'. Anything else is not science. What you are asking is for a fundemental change in the way science is done. It has worked in the past and your approach has failed in the past. Lightening, earthquakes, and disease were attributed to God's wrath but as it turns out, we found natural phenomena to explain them.

Your statement Nothing Doesn't create something is simply a strawman. Good thing science never suggests that it did.

Abiogenesis and evolution isn't 'something from nothing'. So, even if your law holds, it doesn't prevent science from investigating it just as it investigated lightening, earthquakes, and disease in the past. You are misrepresenting science and what science does and how it does it.

This is not a good way to argue your side. You want to fill in holes in your own knowledge with God did it. That's fine, but suggesting that science should follow suit doesn't logically follow. If we did that, science would stop and we never would be where we are now. We would still be chalking up disease to evil spirits.

You want to try to smear those who are Christian but who accept science and what it can show us and to somehow suggest that they are denying God or reducing his glory. They are doing none of these. They are simply doing science the way it has been done since the method was invented. No more, no less. You are attributing motivations that are not valid or true to those Christians. This is simply false witness.

 

[Dust and Ashes]

More uncharitable remarks.



Yet you continue to debate your case. The irony's getting thick.

Have you stepped into the General Theology forum lately? There is a lot of heresy and hatred thrown around in there quite liberally in spite of the rules and mods. It is not uncharitable to note something that is happening.

And how am I continuing to debate my case? Do you mean the case that it's a non-issue for me? No debate there, just stating a fact. Make what you like of it.

Edited to add:

I have been uncharitable, though I don't feel my observation about the theology forums was particularly so. I am sorry for anything I have said that was uncharitable and ask forgiveness from all who have been offended by what I've said. Since I really have no interest in debating creation/evolution, I won't do that here. Please forgive me for that as well.

 

[Smidlee]

If I come down with cancer, do I go to my pastor without going to the doctor?
If my car breaks down, do I go to my pastor without going to the mechanic?
If somebody sues me, do I go to my pastor without going to a lawyer?

And if you need to run faster to help save the antelope, do you would turn to your evolutionist? This is what this man did and just look at the results.

 

[Critias]

And if you need to run faster to help save the antelope, do you would turn to your evolutionist? This is what this man did and just look at the results.