Can I Be A Scientist And A Christian?

There is no conflict between faith and science. The problem is that so few understand what the terms "faith"
and "science" mean.
"Faith" = "trust", no more, no less. In this context it means trust that "God is" and that He is reliable.
"Science" can best be stated as an accumulation of knowledge based on measurable, repeatable methods.



The notion of "Science" is abused terribly these days.
Too often, the unwashed masses consider science to be whatever some authority has said. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Argument to authority is one of the more common logical fallacies. An authority is only and authority if what he says is actually true, otherwise he is no more reliable than the average village idiot.
"Global warming" is a very good example of supposed authority being based on hot air and propaganda.

As to the modern notion of "faith", a philospher once said (I'm paraphrasing here)
"as people move away from traditional religions, my fear is not that they will believe nothing,
my fear is that they will believe anything"

That is what I have seen. Moderns will believe anything, as long as it is objectively not true.
 
Huntingteckel said:
I agree. I'm not convinced on evolution for that very reason. It just seemed to be based more in faith than science to me. Maybe I'm just ignorant to some major evidence that I just haven't seen though.

As for the age of earth though, there are so many ways that scientists have been able to tell how old it is. It's not like they are basing it on one test.
Click to expand...
Belief in evolution requires more faith than I have. The complex systems which comprise even the simplest of life (not to mention humans) could not have arisen in a piece-by-piece manner no matter how many millions of years you allow. The evidence can be interpreted many ways, including the way God intended.

I have real problems with the dating methods used. I also believe in apparent age. For example, how old was Adam when he was created?
 
Glomung said:
There is no conflict between faith and science. The problem is that so few understand what the terms "faith"
and "science" mean.
"Faith" = "trust", no more, no less. In this context it means trust that "God is" and that He is reliable.
"Science" can best be stated as an accumulation of knowledge based on measurable, repeatable methods.



The notion of "Science" is abused terribly these days.
Too often, the unwashed masses consider science to be whatever some authority has said. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Argument to authority is one of the more common logical fallacies. An authority is only and authority if what he says is actually true, otherwise he is no more reliable than the average village idiot.
"Global warming" is a very good example of supposed authority being based on hot air and propaganda.

As to the modern notion of "faith", a philospher once said (I'm paraphrasing here)
"as people move away from traditional religions, my fear is not that they will believe nothing,
my fear is that they will believe anything"

That is what I have seen. Moderns will believe anything, as long as it is objectively not true.
Click to expand...
Science presents too many things as truth when they really have no idea.

For example, as soon as they discover another planet in a galaxy far, far away (how many pixels did the telescope really detect?) they have an artists rendition prepared which is their concept of what it might look like. They have no idea whatsoever what the planet looks like, it's true size or composition. Tell me the information the telescope is receiving hasn't been corrupted over the many light-years.
 
For example, as soon as they discover another planet in a galaxy far, far away (how many pixels did the telescope really detect?) they have an artists rendition prepared which is their concept of what it might look like.

True, because real science is BORING, you have to sell it a bit, give it some pizzazz.
"We found a rock, approx 120% earth mass, average temps around 10 C, H2O content unknown" just doesn't sell.
Not to mention the fact that it is (for all practical purposes) an infinite distance away.

They have no idea whatsoever what the planet looks like, it's true size or composition.

They have a good idea of it's mass and composition (within 10%, give or take), no idea what it looks like.

Tell me the information the telescope is receiving hasn't been corrupted over the many light-years.

If it had "been corrupted" it wouldn't get here, light does not work that way.
The only things you can do to light are block it or Doppler shift it. Since the "hydrogen emission"
is a standard everywhere you can use that to determine Doppler shift.
 
goggles said:
"In fact, if science would embrace the literal word of God they'd be much further along in their knowledge."

That's an interesting statement to make. How so?
Click to expand...
There are hundreds if not thousands of wonders in the Scriptures that science can learn from. Here's an example:

Job 38:22 (KJV)
Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,

Snow is a great insulator. It protects delicate strawberries from frost. Snow makes homes for eskimos. Snowfall delivers nitrates, sulphate calcium, potassium and other trace elements to farmers' fields.

Here's an example of one who chose to discover what the word of God said existed...

Psalms 8:8 (KJV)
The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, [and whatsoever] passeth through the paths of the seas.

"Lieut. Matthew Fontaine Maury U.S. Navy (January 14, 1806 – February 1, 1873), United States Navy, was an American astronomer, historian, oceanographer, meteorologist, cartographer, author, geologist, and educator.

He was nicknamed 'Pathfinder of the Seas' and 'Father of Modern Oceanography and Naval Meteorology' and later, 'Scientist of the Seas,' due to the publication of his extensive works in his books, especially The Physical Geography of the Sea (1855), the first extensive and comprehensive book on oceanography to be published. Maury made many important new contributions to charting winds and ocean currents, including ocean lanes for passing ships at sea.

"Matthew Maury's seagoing days came to an abrupt end at the age of 33 after a stagecoach accident broke his right leg. Thereafter, he devoted his time to the study of naval meteorology, navigation, charting the winds and currents, seeking the 'Paths of the Seas' mentioned in Psalms 8:8 'The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.' Maury had known of the Psalms of David since childhood." Wikipedia

There are so many more, but that's for you to discover :)
 
daily devotion said:
. In fact, Genesis has two completely different creation stories, one in Genesis 1:1-2:3 and another in Genesis 2:4-25. The two accounts don't agree with each other and cannot be reconciled. For example, in the first account man is created last, but in the second account man is created first. So what's the deal? The deal is that the Bible cares little about science and very much about theology.
Click to expand...

Does not matter what you are, I am just thankful your not a pastor anymore.

God's Word never contradicts, and the bible is not about Theology, it's about Truth, light and life. You can't get healed, saved, set free based on some theology.

It's your lack of understanding and wisdom that tells you any place in the Word Contradicts and is pride of the enemy.

1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
 
Huntingteckel said:
The Catholic Church does seem way more accepting of science. Most of the churches where I live refuse to even listen to anything about science relating to evolution or the age of the earth.
Click to expand...
The Galileo affair influenced the Popes acceptance of it. Many Catholics today are acknowledging that they opened the door to atheism. They gave the devil their hand and now he is coming for their arm.
 
Many Catholics today are acknowledging that they opened the door to atheism. They gave the devil their hand and now he is coming for their arm.

I'm sorry KingJ, but that is completely inaccurate. We are interested in truth, nothing more, nothing less. Regardless of the source.
Evangelicals have turned a blind eye to science fearing it may upset their beliefs.

This needs to be repeated again (and again)
If what you believe does not agree with reality, it is not reality that needs adjustment, it is your beliefs.
 
KingJ said:
The Galileo affair influenced the Popes acceptance of it. Many Catholics today are acknowledging that they opened the door to atheism. They gave the devil their hand and now he is coming for their arm.
Click to expand...
So believing that God used evolution to form life or that the earth is old leads to atheism?
 
Glomung said:
Many Catholics today are acknowledging that they opened the door to atheism. They gave the devil their hand and now he is coming for their arm.

I'm sorry KingJ, but that is completely inaccurate. We are interested in truth, nothing more, nothing less. Regardless of the source.
Evangelicals have turned a blind eye to science fearing it may upset their beliefs.

This needs to be repeated again (and again)
If what you believe does not agree with reality, it is not reality that needs adjustment, it is your beliefs.
Click to expand...

I suppose if you were with Moses and saw God split the red sea, you would be standing there going........ NO, it can't be so, you just don't split water like this, it's not real, or reality.

You also would have been collecting mana with the rest of the folks saying....... "look, If I ain't got no food, then you collect food. We don't have 100% promise that God will even remember to feed us tomorrow.

We walk not after the things seen, but the things not seen. For the things that are seen (Reality as you call it) are temporal, changeable and not stable, the Word of God is eternal and solid.

Facts may be that I am sick, but truth says I am the healed. Truth always overcomes the reality of all natural things.

Faith in the Word, changes the facts (Reality)

Heb 3:19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.
 
Mikey - you have a real gift for missing the point.
Not one bit of your rant has anything wahtsoever to do with what I wrote.

Reading comprehension not your thing?

You also seem to have a very warped notion of what reality is.
This may help REALITY is what is, regardless of the notions of the viewer.
 
Glomung said:
Mikey - you have a real gift for missing the point.
Not one bit of your rant has anything wahtsoever to do with what I wrote.

Reading comprehension not your thing?

You also seem to have a very warped notion of what reality is.
This may help REALITY is what is, regardless of the notions of the viewer.
Click to expand...

I understand what you posted was in context with the discussion.

It was your comment I responded to, not taking anything else into consideration. Now if that is a lack of reading comprehension, then I am guilty.
 
HisManySongs said:
Belief in evolution requires more faith than I have. The complex systems which comprise even the simplest of life (not to mention humans) could not have arisen in a piece-by-piece manner no matter how many millions of years you allow. The evidence can be interpreted many ways, including the way God intended.

I have real problems with the dating methods used. I also believe in apparent age. For example, how old was Adam when he was created?
Click to expand...

I agree that evolution could not have happen... Unless God did it.

There are tons of methods used for dating. I do believe that scientists have a tendency to think they know everything, but I don't think that every single one of them (besides the "christian" scientists) came to the conclusion of the age of the earth in error.

Let's say that the "apparent" age for the earth is millions of years but in reality it is only 6000 years old. There wouldn't be enough time for the animals we know to have existed to exist. Where did they get the different time periods during dinosaur times? Did they pull that out of their rears as well? Or did Satan put fossils in the earth to trick us? (which, without a doubt, is the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my life) God isn't going to make nature intentionally look millions of years older than it is for no apparent reason.
 
Glomung said:
Many Catholics today are acknowledging that they opened the door to atheism. They gave the devil their hand and now he is coming for their arm.

I'm sorry KingJ, but that is completely inaccurate. We are interested in truth, nothing more, nothing less. Regardless of the source.
Evangelicals have turned a blind eye to science fearing it may upset their beliefs.

This needs to be repeated again (and again)
If what you believe does not agree with reality, it is not reality that needs adjustment, it is your beliefs.
Click to expand...

The intentions of the Popes' to accept science (y)...the Popes accepting evolution when today it is clearly known to be false science / religion (n).

Ludwig Ott in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma - God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created. Let's face reality, God's guiding hand has never been considered in evolution's findings. The 'science' has been stretched to include all kinds of sick natural selection...that making God a part of, is sickening.

Why can't the Catholic church be clearer today and reject large portions of evolution's clear beliefs that mock God and scripture?

Even thinking about modern man find recently to be 200k bc. Was that a claim the Pope had to deal with back in the day?

If you do not contend evolution perhaps you can try put me at ease with these 3 issues I have.

1. If mankind is 200k years old, where is the missing scripture / instructions from God to intelligent man?

2. Who did Jesus die for? If mankind is evolving intelligence, when was he accountable for sin? Was Adam's father a monkey he kept in a cage or someone equally accountable?

3. How is natural selection not evil? If we cannot trace it to the fallen angels or mankinds influence on the world, then only God is to blame, for evil.

Hence evolution give atheists ammo to regard 1. Christianity as recent fairy-tale dogma, 2. the cross a joke and 3. God is evil.

Sorry, we can't sit and just ignore these insinuations like they don't exist. The Pope has a responsibility for identifying heresies attacking the faith. It is high time evolution is identified as a religion. Only fools still believe it is a science.
 
KingJ said:
The intentions of the Popes' to accept science (y)...the Popes accepting evolution when today it is clearly known to be false science / religion (n).

Ludwig Ott in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma - God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created. Let's face reality, God's guiding hand has never been considered in evolution's findings. The 'science' has been stretched to include all kinds of sick natural selection...that making God a part of, is sickening.

Why can't the Catholic church be clearer today and reject large portions of evolution's clear beliefs that mock God and scripture?

Even thinking about modern man find recently to be 200k bc. Was that a claim the Pope had to deal with back in the day?

If you do not contend evolution perhaps you can try put me at ease with these 3 issues I have.

1. If mankind is 200k years old, where is the missing scripture / instructions from God to intelligent man?

2. Who did Jesus die for? If mankind is evolving intelligence, when was he accountable for sin? Was Adam's father a monkey he kept in a cage or someone equally accountable?

3. How is natural selection not evil? If we cannot trace it to the fallen angels or mankinds influence on the world, then only God is to blame, for evil.

Hence evolution give atheists ammo to regard 1. Christianity as recent fairy-tale dogma, 2. the cross a joke and 3. God is evil.

Sorry, we can't sit and just ignore these insinuations like they don't exist. The Pope has a responsibility for identifying heresies attacking the faith. It is high time evolution is identified as a religion. Only fools still believe it is a science.
Click to expand...


1. Maybe it's lost to history or humans didn't have written language or something. I mean, honestly it's amazing that the Old Testament even made it based on the age. Maybe God came down directly and spoke with them? Who knows. I honestly can't remember how old evolutionists think humanity is anyway.

2. When God breathed life/spirit into him and he became made in the image of God.

3. I'm of the opinion that animals did die before the fall. For whatever reason I can't imagine that carnivores were eating grass before Adam sinned. Their bodies are designed to be meat eaters, not veggie eaters. Besides, their mouths are not even designed to be able to eat large amounts of grass/plants easily.

I always like your posts, KingJ, even if I don't agree. :)
 
KingJ said:
The intentions of the Popes' to accept science (y)...the Popes accepting evolution when today it is clearly known to be false science / religion (n).

Ludwig Ott in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma - God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created. Let's face reality, God's guiding hand has never been considered in evolution's findings. The 'science' has been stretched to include all kinds of sick natural selection...that making God a part of, is sickening.

Why can't the Catholic church be clearer today and reject large portions of evolution's clear beliefs that mock God and scripture?

Evolution is a process, is does not mock anyone or anything.

Even thinking about modern man find recently to be 200k bc. Was that a claim the Pope had to deal with back in the day?

??????????????????????? in English?

If you do not contend evolution perhaps you can try put me at ease with these 3 issues I have.

1. If mankind is 200k years old, where is the missing scripture / instructions from God to intelligent man?

There is no missing scripture, you are making false assumptions.

2. Who did Jesus die for? If mankind is evolving intelligence, when was he accountable for sin? Was Adam's father a monkey he kept in a cage or someone equally accountable

He died for us. Not to be rude, but the monkey comment is stupid. What is your real question?

3. How is natural selection not evil? If we cannot trace it to the fallen angels or mankinds influence on the world, then only God is to blame, for evil.

Natural selection is math, logically it cannot be argued against. Your inferenecs are flawed.

Hence evolution give atheists ammo to regard 1. Christianity as recent fairy-tale dogma, 2. the cross a joke and 3. God is evil.

Sorry, we can't sit and just ignore these insinuations like they don't exist. The Pope has a responsibility for identifying heresies attacking the faith. It is high time evolution is identified as a religion. Only fools still believe it is a science.
Click to expand...

Your shallow and pointless hatred of Catholocism is noted.
 
The odd thing is that I had a 20 line reply, only the last line got copied.
And, as usual Mikey had something FLAGRANTLY STUPID to say.

Mikey, do me the favor and shut your mindless yap.

You are of no benefit to anyone or anything other than your ego.
 
Glomung said:
The odd thing is that I had a 20 line reply, only the last line got copied.
And, as usual Mikey had something FLAGRANTLY STUPID to say.

Mikey, do me the favor and shut your mindless yap.

You are of no benefit to anyone or anything other than your ego.
Click to expand...

I don't hear any grateful tone coming from you that you have yet to be eaten by vampires. Could be I am just reading what you just posted to me wrong, then again..................
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top