Do you trust science?

[wildernesse]

Since creation scientists challenge the accepted scientific norms for biology and cosmology and geology, do those of you who accept creation science trust science in other instances that don't deal directly with the study of evolution or the origin of the universe?

I can't really think of a science that doesn't rest on the implications of the accepted norms, though. All that I do think of (medicine, forestry, agriculture, chemistry) either use conclusions drawn from current biological theory or support current models of the origin of the universe.

I guess what I'm trying to ask is: Why do you trust medicine/agriculture/chemistry? Do you?

--tibac

 

[sbbqb7n16]

Yesterday at 05:13 PM wildernesse said this in Post #1
I guess what I'm trying to ask is: Why do you trust medicine/agriculture/chemistry? Do you?

--tibac

These 3 fields of science deal with "cause and effect" proof.. what I mean is that you can test the effects of medicine repeatedly... you can test the effects of fertilizer repeatedly... and you can mix chemicals repeatedly and get the same (or highly similar) result every time.

Biology and geology and astronomy generally base their findings off speculated prior evidence without the aid of a trial condition. Take erosion findings for example: evolutionary scientists will speculate that the Grand Canyon took 1000's if not millions of years to form, but cannot test such a hypothesis. Canyons/landscapes have been formed in 5 years to produce the exact effect that they claim took those 1000's of years and thus jade their findings in my mind.

That's what I think anyway

 

[wildernesse]

Today at 05:59 AM sbbqb7n16 said this in Post #3 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=657823#post657823)

These 3 fields of science deal with "cause and effect" proof.. what I mean is that you can test the effects of medicine repeatedly... you can test the effects of fertilizer repeatedly... and you can mix chemicals repeatedly and get the same (or highly similar) result every time.

Biology and geology and astronomy generally base their findings off speculated prior evidence without the aid of a trial condition. Take erosion findings for example: evolutionary scientists will speculate that the Grand Canyon took 1000's if not millions of years to form, but cannot test such a hypothesis. Canyons/landscapes have been formed in 5 years to produce the exact effect that they claim took those 1000's of years and thus jade their findings in my mind.

That's what I think anyway

Modern medicine and agriculture rely on evolutionary theory to develop new medicines and study diseases and their effects.

We understand basic chemistry using the same physical rules that tell us about the age and composition of our planet and ancient universe.

I don't think you can separate the theoretical parts you disagree with with the applied conclusions based on those theories. There are plenty of trials and tests for these theories--and applied sciences (like agriculture and medicine) use those very same theories to reach their conclusions and, in fact, aid those theories by providing evidence that reinforces the predictions that those theories make.

If you can observe the world and make predictions about it, and then further observations support those predictions, you have a workable theory. Experiments and tests are simply controlled observations. So far, the continued observations of our natural world are pretty much in alignment with the predictions that current biological and cosmological scientific thought makes.

One more thing: Scientists who study evolution do not study geology. Evolution is the study of the biological mechanism that accounts for the diversity of biological life we see today. Geology is not part of evolutionary theory. Neither is astronomy.

--tibac

 

[Andrew]

There is science and there is false science.

There is fact and then there is God's higher truth.

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:

 

[wildernesse]

False science?

Such as the theoretical branches of biology that inform medical practitioncers and agricultural researchers to produce a higher standard of living for you? You can't separate medicine and agriculture and chemistry from the theoretical branches of biology and cosmology. They are real-life applications of those "false theories".

If false science and science operate on the same principles and through the same methods, how do you tell the difference between the two?

--tibac

 

[Smilin]

15th February 2003 at 06:13 PM wildernesse said this in Post #1 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=655617#post655617)

I guess what I'm trying to ask is: Why do you trust medicine/agriculture/chemistry? Do you?

--tibac

I trust medicine since my wife has been in the field for 6 years. I trust medicine because they succesfully treated many of my injuries, a stomach disease, and saved my life when i contracted amoebic dysentary.

I trust agriculture since I live in an area of the country that grows the majority of the United States nursery stock, livestock, and full-bred horses. I laugh at all the 'evolution is from Satan' posters when they have no clue how many new plant species have been devoloped through evolution. I laugh at the same posters when they have no clue most of the fruit and produce in the supermarkets are the results of evolution.

I trust in chemistry because of my studies/laboratory work/ and continuing use of the subject.

I am confused though with the term 'Creation Scientists'.... I've never met one and didn't know scientists distinguished themselves in such a manner.

 

[wildernesse]

Smilin:

Then you realize that a lot of agricultural and medical research is based on applications of evolution. And the same knowledge that we use to understand chemical reactions and properties inform our understanding of the behavior of the universe at its beginning.

Well, no one can tell me of any research that creation scientists are doing--so I think they may be a rare breed. Of scientists--now charlatans, I think that there may be plenty of those.

--tibac

 

[Smilin]

Today at 12:27 PM wildernesse said this in Post #8 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=658596#post658596)

Smilin:

Then you realize that a lot of agricultural and medical research is based on applications of evolution. And the same knowledge that we use to understand chemical reactions and properties inform our understanding of the behavior of the universe at its beginning.

Well, no one can tell me of any research that creation scientists are doing--so I think they may be a rare breed. Of scientists--now charlatans, I think that there may be plenty of those.

--tibac

I don't believe true scientists label themselves as 'creationists' or 'evolutionists' as implied by the religious connotations associated with them. Scientists, however, are religous. I work with many Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc. However, not one of them would refer to themselves as a 'creationist scientist'. I don't think such scientists exist. If they do...please inform me.

 

[wildernesse]

I agree that scientists are religious. I work for a professor who researches evolutionary theory. She's also a Christian. There is no disconnect.

--tibac

 

[dnich163]

I see no contradiction between believing in Science and creation.
I don't know where this idea that believing in the creation of the world/man/science is in any way contradictory.

There are quite a lot of christian scientists who incorporate God in all that they see and know and do. This is one of the reasons that there is an ethical movement within the sciences.

This has been the view of the Catholic church as far as I am aware for a long time.
One Jesuit said to me that if a new life form is suddenly found on Mars that the fundamental belief in God would still be the same....as creator of all that exists.

David

 

[wblastyn]

I see no contradiction between believing in Science and creation.
I don't know where this idea that believing in the creation of the world/man/science is in any way contradictory.

I think they are talking about scientists who believe in creationISM, which is the theory that God zapped everything into existance 6000 years ago in their full form. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Today at 04:21 AM Andrew said this in Post #5 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=658133#post658133)

There is science and there is false science.

There is fact and then there is God's higher truth.

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:

There is false science. The problem is that you have misidentified what science is false.

 

[bdiddie4christ]

Well I believe science can be a blessing and yet a curse.God gave us knowledge to think and create things. It just what we create and do with what we create that makes it good or bad.
Sincerally, bdiddie4christ

 

[dnich163]

I think they are talking about scientists who believe in creationISM, which is the theory that God zapped everything into existance 6000 years ago in their full form. Please correct me if I'm wrong. [/B]

[/QUOTE]


Hi there weblastyn,

This is not my understanding of creationism. The zapping process sounds too much like a micro wave oven to me.....now theres a thought to start a thread !!!

My understanding is that the "story" of creation in Genesis is about why, and the evolutionary process; whatever it actually is, is about how.

In my experience, the evolutionary process still has some loose ends and we are still discovering new evidence which changes our knowledge of how.

In the creationist standpoint however, the why is one of the reasons this forum exists, and indeed the how follows on from the why.

Is this making sense to you?

I've had a long tiring day and will need to log out now.

David

 

 

[wblastyn]

Hi there weblastyn,

This is not my understanding of creationism. The zapping process sounds too much like a micro wave oven to me.....now theres a thought to start a thread !!!

My understanding is that the "story" of creation in Genesis is about why, and the evolutionary process; whatever it actually is, is about how.

In my experience, the evolutionary process still has some loose ends and we are still discovering new evidence which changes our knowledge of how.

In the creationist standpoint however, the why is one of the reasons this forum exists, and indeed the how follows on from the why.

Is this making sense to you?

I've had a long tiring day and will need to log out now.

David

Yes, I understand, I think Ibelieve the same thing as you.

However, for some reason creation is different from creationism; creation is the belief that God created everything, but says nothing about how, whereas creationism takes a literal interpretation of Genesis and says God zapped everything into existence in 6 days 6000 years ago, the opposing belief on how God created everything would be evolution.

I think I got that right, again, please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[wildernesse]

dnich163:

wblastyn explains very well. I think you are explaining exactly what many theistic evolutionists believe. That God created, Genesis gives us clues as to why--and scientific observation tells us how.

Creationism is not believing that God created. It is believing that God created exactly as Genesis so vaguely states--and denies any observation/evidence that does not support this belief. People twist themselves up in all sorts of ways to explain away science that makes them uncomfortable.

bdiddie4christ:

I agree--our knowledge and abilities can be used for good or bad reasons. However, using those abilities to learn more about this natural world for the sake of understanding is not a bad thing IMO.

--tibac

 

[wblastyn]

You got it perfect! Nice job!

Good

Can you explain how evolution is used in medicine, etc?

I'm currently debating evolution with Christians on another forum, it's kind of annoying, they keep ignoring all the evidence I provide them and use the same rhetoric over and over "You put your faith in science, not God!" "scripture does not mention evolution!" "Our God does not need evolution!" yadda yadda, the same thing they say here really.

 

[dnich163]

Hello good forum friends,

This observation may be completely wide of the mark so please forgive me if I offend.
There has been a lot of discussion on creation and creationism in this forum. My understanding of these two words are that one is the term for belief in the other i.e. that creationism is the belief in the creation as recorded in Genesis.

This appears to me to be a particularly American phenomenon mainly. The belief in the literal Genesis was given up in Europe centuries ago and is not something i've come across anywhere else.

Strangely enough one of my all time favourite movies is "Inherit The Wind" with Spencer Tracey and Frederic March.
The story is based on a real event that took place in Dayton Ohio and was called the Scopes Monkey Trial. A teacher was charged with teaching about evolution from the Darwinian perspective, and was arrested and charged with violating state law which specifically required the teaching of creation as recorded in Genesis to be taught.

The whole film is about the danger of religious fundamentalism, and challenges us to question.

This question is what the creationists do not want, yet for me it is necessary as it is only by knowing that we can grow and develop.

Just an observation.

David

 

[wblastyn]

Thankyou, lucaspa

 

[dnich163]

Hi lucaspa,
It's okay on the Inherit The Wind and the Scopes Monkey trial. I just typed the wrong info onto the post. I have covered the Clarence Darrow side of things in the real trial as well as Walter Jennings Bryan.

I know that at the time there was disbelief in the European theologian sphere that this literal interpretation of Genesis was adhered to in the US at that time as it had long been discounted as a literal work on this side of the Atlantic.

I know also that the film; while based on a play,was really released to counter the McCarthy assault on freedom of thought, and this theme is prevalent throughout the acting and dialogue.

There is little doubt that this issue of creation/Genesis/evolution is still a big talking point on this forum.

I don't see the problem if evolution is part of creation.

David