Yes, I think we will be judge how we say things rather than how our point of view is correct...
Of course, this does not compromise the Cross : Salvation History: the Gospel, Jesus Christ birth, death and resurrection…
Christians and Science
- Thread starter lizloves
- Start date
Yes, I think we will be judge how we say things rather than how our point of view is correct...
Of course, this does not compromise the Cross : Salvation History: the Gospel, Jesus Christ birth, death and resurrection…
When I am reading posts from other viewpoints, I remember that I am here to see how others view Him. There is a core that I believe is necessary (Who Christ is, why we need Him, His payment), Christ crucified and raised.
Although I may state my views, as I have here, I am not attempting to change anyone else's view. No one really cares if Siloam agrees with them or not. But I am always looking for a useful insight that may help me to gain a better understanding of our Lord. If that requires that I discard a misunderstanding that I held in my spiritual youth, so much the better.
?
/
Guest
I would like to be a scientist but I'm an engineer.
Luckily I'm a priest too. I love this job.
Luckily I'm a priest too. I love this job.
I love this quote from my Pastor before:
A Pastor's job: the pay may not be good, but the retirement benefits is infinite : )
I find genetics very intersting to study and did biology and chemistry at school. Balancing equations was tricky but I think of those atoms, electrons and nuclei as little God particles (we made from dust after all) and that only God could have designed us, those little particles dont have a mind of their own, and also as it says in Genesis God breathed into man and gave him a living soul.
Science cannot really measure a soul...it only looks at the natural, not the spiritual. While I love creation I worship the creator rather than creation and know God made it all.
Science cannot really measure a soul...it only looks at the natural, not the spiritual. While I love creation I worship the creator rather than creation and know God made it all.
One caveat: Science is not to be worshiped, it is to be used to learn more about His creation, and by that to learn more about Him. I know that many scientists do not approach it from this standpoint, but that does not mean that we, as Christians cannot learn about the Creator by studying His creation. Dry knowledge does not save, but adding knowledge to faith can create a strong Christian.
I just want to clarify a couple of things in my earlier post...
Notice that neither Billy Graham nor either of the Popes actually came out and endorsed Evolution as correct, only that it is not necessarily against Biblical teaching.
In the case of Pope Paul II, the most often repeated quote from his address was 'Truth cannot contradict Truth". While those words do appear in that address, and the address concerned the study of evolution, a careful reading of that will show the the Pope was not equating evolution with Truth, let alone with scriptural truth. What he was saying about Truth not contradicting Truth was similar to Augustine's argument, which is simply if the truth about God's creation is known, than a correct interpretation of scripture will be in agreement. And if an interpretation of scripture is not in agreement with a known truth from God's creation than that interpretation must be false.
Of course that leaves the determining of what is true to begin with.
My main point in providing that post was to point out that far from being a position composed only of those who have not committed their lives to Christ, many of those that have committed their lives to God and the scriptures do not find the things of Science at odds with the things of faith. This was particularly important since the original post was from someone that is both a new Christian, and someone with a background that values scientific discovery, and many of the posts were rather flippant or disparaging toward science rather than pointing out that science studies the world that the Lord has made.
This is exactly the problem Augustine foresaw when he wrote the Literal Interpretation of Genesis (see post #13)
Wow, I am amazed at all of these intelligent responses! I won't be able to reply to each person individually like I normally do.. but I do thank all of you who contributed to this conversation! I will be looking into and researching many of your excellent points. I appreciate the time that all of you took to read my post and to leave me responses to help me on my journey!
Liz
Liz
As you grow in your walk with Christ and He reveals the truth to you, you will come to understand and see that as a follower of Christ, science and God's Word do not contradict one another. You might ask, 'how can this be'? It's actually quite simple, everyone has a worldview - a set of beliefs learned throughout their years that form their thoughts on all kinds of things; how the universe began, how humans came to be, morals, etc. Those who use science as their foundation for everything and reject the Biblical God will interpret scientific data according to their worldview; this is to say that they will interpret the data to make it seem that something naturally occurred without the intervention of a 'supreme being' aka 'a god or gods'. Those who use God's Word as their foundation for their worldview (the only correct one), will see the Biblical God in the scientific data they interpret. Unfortunately we don't get to hear the Biblical worldview very often, if ever, in mainstream news outlets because the idea of a 'god' is becoming less and less 'popular'.
You are getting into an interesting and challenging field of work, one that does not look highly on those who accept a 'god', especially the Biblical God. 1 Peter 3:15 tells us "but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence." You are going to be challenged (if you haven't already) for your belief in Christ. What else aside from the things you posted (I will address those as well) are you uncomfortable with when people ask you questions?
Always an interesting subject to tackle. Although I know very little on how to refute this claim, one thing to consider is the existence of Carbon-14 which is used for the dating process. Carbon-14 once taken in by said living organism, ceases, thus starting the dating process. The rate and which Carbon-14 decays along with other hypotheses such as the steady decay of the earth's magnetic field, puts the earth at about 10,000 years. This gets pretty in depth. If you would like to know the intricacies of the process, you can view the information HERE.
Another thing to remember, with scientists who use science as their foundation for their worldview, they are of course going to see something other than God in the interpretation of their data, thus why we have an impression the world is so old and why the universe is roughly 13.4 billion years old. There is also no such thing as 'unbiased' or 'impartial' interpretation of data, it's impossible. People will always view/interpret data based on their own worldview. You will learn later on that they must stand on biblical principles to even have their worldview, but that may be revealed in a later post
I would not say you 'believe' in science, science provides tools for us to use in testing and interpreting data. It would be inaccurate for someone to say Christian's do not believe in science; we do indeed. However, we see God in the data, non-believers see something else (their own egos perhaps o_O). Another misconception is that Christians have created their own set of data to interpret and that is why we believe said data; this is also incorrect. Believers and non-believers use the same data, we just interpret it differently.
Now, on to the 'Big Bang'. Two major flaws with the big bang are 1) it cannot be recreated; 2) it cannot be observed. There are also those like Stephen Hawking who say "the universe created itself, therefore it can sustain itself". This is an example of circular reasoning, which is a fallacy and illogical. It's beginning with what you are trying to prove, yet the statement proves nothing. If you want to get someone thinking, ask them how to explain 'uniformity in nature'. If you don't know what that is, I would suggest further reading!
Glomung
Account Closed
'uniformity in nature'
We expect nature to be uniform: We believe that patterns of regularity observed in the past will continue to hold into the future. This is called our belief in the “Principle of the Uniformity of Nature” (PUN).
PUN is essential to science. The “Laws of Nature,” we believe, will continue to hold in the future as they have held in the past. Without this belief, science is not valid.
In other words, you can't have valid measurements if you can't rely on your measuring stick staying the same length from day to day.
This really has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
The "Big Bang" is assumed to be true because it is the only theory that explains the observed phenomena and does not require a belief in magic or miracles. Science does not deny that the miraculous occurs, however it does not rely on it because miracles are un-measurable and unreliable.
We expect nature to be uniform: We believe that patterns of regularity observed in the past will continue to hold into the future. This is called our belief in the “Principle of the Uniformity of Nature” (PUN).
PUN is essential to science. The “Laws of Nature,” we believe, will continue to hold in the future as they have held in the past. Without this belief, science is not valid.
In other words, you can't have valid measurements if you can't rely on your measuring stick staying the same length from day to day.
This really has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
The "Big Bang" is assumed to be true because it is the only theory that explains the observed phenomena and does not require a belief in magic or miracles. Science does not deny that the miraculous occurs, however it does not rely on it because miracles are un-measurable and unreliable.
Hebrews 1:3 disagrees with your statement. If there were no uniformity, you shouldn't be surprised if you wake up tomorrow morning pressed against your ceiling because gravity decided to weaken.
This is exactly my point, science must lean on Biblical principles if it expects to try and prove anything.
Glomung
Account Closed
Science has no use for "biblical principals" (whatever that is supposed to mean).
Science is all about comparing the unknown to the known to be able to classify and understand the unknown.
Science is not about "proving" anything, it is about understanding what is measurable.
Science is not about supporting whatever pet theological notions some folks may have.
Science must lean on the preconditions of ineligibility to know anything; things which must be assumed before 'knowing' can even take place. For example, science cannot account for the laws of logic as they are not material things, they must be assumed before we know anything. We can account for the laws of logic because we were made in God's image thus we have some attributes of God's character and how He thinks. Science would be impossible without the laws of logic, including other preconditions of intelligibility such as reliability of our senses.
I'm sorry if someone's already said this - I read through the previous posts rather quickly, and I might well have missed it! Just a wee comment regarding what the Bible says about how the world was created.
In Genesis, verse 1 and 2, we have this awesome statement: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was waste and empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters."
Then there's the key, which fits in between verses 1 and 2. That key is Isaiah 45:18: "For thus saith Jehovah who created the heavens, God himself who formed the earth and made it, he who established it, -- not as waste did he create it: he formed it to be inhabited: -- I am Jehovah, and there is none else."
From this, we can see that God created the heavens and the earth, verse 1 of Genesis. Then, something occurred to make it waste and empty, and we get to verse 2 of Genesis. What happened, we don't know. That leaves room for all the geologic discoveries and the vast period of time which science would chart for the existence of the world. The planet may well be millions or billions of years old - time is no object to God. It all might have take place in the space of 4,000 years as well, I don't think we can rule that out. I should make it clear, however, that I do believe God made the world in seven days. He made it what it was as suitable again for human habitation in that period, after it became waste and empty. He restored order and form to what He'd brought into being in the beginning.
I do believe we can calculate, however, that the human race is about 6,000 years old, if we look at the ages of the people recorded in scripture and work back.
I hope that seems acceptable to the brethren - I hope I haven't got off scriptural ground in any of these statements. There's a lot of very interesting teaching connected with these three amazing verses, but I won't go into that here, unless anyone particularly wants to know more about it.
In Genesis, verse 1 and 2, we have this awesome statement: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was waste and empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters."
Then there's the key, which fits in between verses 1 and 2. That key is Isaiah 45:18: "For thus saith Jehovah who created the heavens, God himself who formed the earth and made it, he who established it, -- not as waste did he create it: he formed it to be inhabited: -- I am Jehovah, and there is none else."
From this, we can see that God created the heavens and the earth, verse 1 of Genesis. Then, something occurred to make it waste and empty, and we get to verse 2 of Genesis. What happened, we don't know. That leaves room for all the geologic discoveries and the vast period of time which science would chart for the existence of the world. The planet may well be millions or billions of years old - time is no object to God. It all might have take place in the space of 4,000 years as well, I don't think we can rule that out. I should make it clear, however, that I do believe God made the world in seven days. He made it what it was as suitable again for human habitation in that period, after it became waste and empty. He restored order and form to what He'd brought into being in the beginning.
I do believe we can calculate, however, that the human race is about 6,000 years old, if we look at the ages of the people recorded in scripture and work back.
I hope that seems acceptable to the brethren - I hope I haven't got off scriptural ground in any of these statements. There's a lot of very interesting teaching connected with these three amazing verses, but I won't go into that here, unless anyone particularly wants to know more about it.