Science and Religion

[DeanM]

I have often found that science and religion seemed to be at odds with eachother. Evolution versus Creation is a good example of this.

But I have been looking into a few of these arguable topics lately, and have realized that the two schools of thought are not mutually exclusive.

Could evolution and creationism both be right? The more I look at at it, the more I have become convinced that we can have both.

Of course, both religion and science have to bend slightly to fit into eachother's molds.

Now, for the people who do not want to bend religion, I assure you that I have tried to keep my ideas to the strict letter of the scriptures. What I have not done is follow the assumptions that some folks attach to these scriptures.

And for the folks who do not like science to be bent, I assure you that my views are in strict keeping with the rules of science. I do not always follow the assumptions, though.

However, I am not a professional scientist nor a theologist, so I may make a few mistakes here and there. Please feel free to correct me if you catch any flaws in my reasoning.

Religion: God commanded that there be light.
Science: The big bang occured.

Both schools agree that there was an instant of origin. In this instant, light was emitted. Religion states the cause for this as God's will. Science has theories, but cannot identify an actual cause for this (other than some controvertial theories involving the 11th dimension).

Religion: God made man
Science: Man evloved from an ape-like creature.

If God had sent angels to genetically mutate an apelike creature into a human, both schools would be correct. Now, religion will take offense to this, but, let's read from Genesis 1:

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=1&version=31#fen-NIV-26b)] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

Nowhere is it said that God made man from dust, or even from scratch. But is this evolution? It isn't Darwinian evolution, to be sure. But since mankind would be based on a modified simian, we could be considered to be a 'cultured' evolution.

The intersting evidence for this comes again from Genesis. Genesis 2:

But for Adam [h (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=2&version=31#fen-NIV-51h)] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs [i (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=2&version=31#fen-NIV-52i)] and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [j (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=2&version=31#fen-NIV-53j)] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

This sounds a lot like anesthesia, surgery, and cloning. And what better place to extract DNA but from a rib? Modern medicine is well aware of the purity of bone-marrow DNA. And what better bone to take than a bone that does not largely contribute to a man's ability to function.

Am I saying that God sent angels here to modify the DNA of apelike creatures, thus giving them some of attributes of the Heavenly Host?

No!

But what I am saying is that it is not difficult to envision a scenario that would be in keeping with both science and scripture.

I have absolutely no reason to think that the creation of the first man was done as I have conjectured. All I am saying is that both religion and science could be correct.

And the more I look into it, the more I see that this is the case.

And in every instance where religion and science seem to be at odds, I have found a set of circumstances in which they can both be correct. Will my scenarios be what really happened? Who knows?

But the important thing is that both schools could be right.

If you can think of any discrepencies between science and religion, I'd love to try to tackle them.

Maybe I'll get proved wrong!

"He had made up an excuse about some of the interactions with his medications. For him, science always provided a plausible explanation that was better than the truth, except in the instance of religion, where science conveniently became the tool of the Devil."-Lawson Alan

[Cris413]

<snip>

Nowhere is it said that God made man from dust, or even from scratch. But is this evolution? It isn't Darwinian evolution, to be sure. But since mankind would be based on a modified simian, we could be considered to be a 'cultured' evolution.

Genesis 2:7

7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

If we read Genesis chapters 1 & 2 as chronological...there is room for much confusion...and it would seem that Chapter 2 conflicts with Chapter 1.

As we know...Scripture does not conflict with Scripture...

Genesis Chapter 2 expounds on Chapter 1 in greater detail and the focus changes from the creation of the world to God's creation of man...

As for the rest of your post...either you are joking or all I can say is...:doh:

[MoNiCa4316]

I do not think that science and religion are mutually exclusive things...physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, mathematics, etc, do not contradict our faith...in fact, the more I study the world the more I am amazed at God's glory.

However, I do not think that it is necessary to accept the theory of evolution in order to be 'scientific'. I'm taking science courses in university and I don't agree with it! I'm a creationist. I don't think that I'm better than those Christians who do believe in evolution, in fact I respect them for finding a common ground between science and faith. But personally, I've just never found it very convincing....I'm talking about macro evolution here: the change from one species to another. Obviously there is "change of allele frequencies in a population over time" (micro evolution)..but variation within a species does not prove macro evolution. I know they have all sort of 'data', but the reason I don't agree with it is not because of my faith but because I think they are misinterpreting their findings. Also, there is some significant evidence against evolution which everyone seems to ignore. Maybe I'm just not much of a scientist and am not understanding it very well, but I've taken several biology courses and I just don't buy it. However, if you do, that's fine too...and if I ever find out that God made evolution, I wouldn't really mind that much. For now, I feel comfortable with what I believe.

[Dies3l]

I have often found that science and religion seemed to be at odds with eachother. Evolution versus Creation is a good example of this.

But I have been looking into a few of these arguable topics lately, and have realized that the two schools of thought are not mutually exclusive.

Could evolution and creationism both be right? The more I look at at it, the more I have become convinced that we can have both.

Of course, both religion and science have to bend slightly to fit into eachother's molds.

Now, for the people who do not want to bend religion, I assure you that I have tried to keep my ideas to the strict letter of the scriptures. What I have not done is follow the assumptions that some folks attach to these scriptures.

And for the folks who do not like science to be bent, I assure you that my views are in strict keeping with the rules of science. I do not always follow the assumptions, though.

However, I am not a professional scientist nor a theologist, so I may make a few mistakes here and there. Please feel free to correct me if you catch any flaws in my reasoning.

Religion: God commanded that there be light.
Science: The big bang occured.

Both schools agree that there was an instant of origin. In this instant, light was emitted. Religion states the cause for this as God's will. Science has theories, but cannot identify an actual cause for this (other than some controvertial theories involving the 11th dimension).

Religion: God made man
Science: Man evloved from an ape-like creature.

If God had sent angels to genetically mutate an apelike creature into a human, both schools would be correct. Now, religion will take offense to this, but, let's read from Genesis 1:

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=1&version=31#fen-NIV-26b)] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

Nowhere is it said that God made man from dust, or even from scratch. But is this evolution? It isn't Darwinian evolution, to be sure. But since mankind would be based on a modified simian, we could be considered to be a 'cultured' evolution.

The intersting evidence for this comes again from Genesis. Genesis 2:

But for Adam [h (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=2&version=31#fen-NIV-51h)] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs [i (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=2&version=31#fen-NIV-52i)] and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [j (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=2&version=31#fen-NIV-53j)] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

This sounds a lot like anesthesia, surgery, and cloning. And what better place to extract DNA but from a rib? Modern medicine is well aware of the purity of bone-marrow DNA. And what better bone to take than a bone that does not largely contribute to a man's ability to function.

Am I saying that God sent angels here to modify the DNA of apelike creatures, thus giving them some of attributes of the Heavenly Host?

No!

But what I am saying is that it is not difficult to envision a scenario that would be in keeping with both science and scripture.

I have absolutely no reason to think that the creation of the first man was done as I have conjectured. All I am saying is that both religion and science could be correct.

And the more I look into it, the more I see that this is the case.

And in every instance where religion and science seem to be at odds, I have found a set of circumstances in which they can both be correct. Will my scenarios be what really happened? Who knows?

But the important thing is that both schools could be right.

If you can think of any discrepencies between science and religion, I'd love to try to tackle them.

Maybe I'll get proved wrong!

"He had made up an excuse about some of the interactions with his medications. For him, science always provided a plausible explanation that was better than the truth, except in the instance of religion, where science conveniently became the tool of the Devil."-Lawson Alan


If a modern conservative Christian were to go back several hundred years and discuss his beliefs with Christians of that time, the modern Christian would very quickly be labeled a heretic. One reason for this is the extent to which we have already allowed science to shape our understanding of Scripture. For example, it would be considered downright blasphemous for a medieval Christian to suggest that the Earth revolves around the sun, that we are only one small planet in a large system of planets that each revolve around the same relatively small and insignificant star, and that our solar system is an incredibly small portion of only one of many enormous galaxies, each one made up of billions of stars, most of which are much larger than the sun. The accepted belief at the time was that Earth was the center of everything and that the heavens consisted of a series of spheres, which encircled the Earth. Christians of the time, at least those who were privileged to be able to read and understand the Bible would have insisted that this belief was plainly dictated by Scripture, but more importantly, it was taught by the Church, and therefore infallible.

Now that we have sufficient evidence that the Earth is not the center of everything, we have reevaluated our understanding of Scripture and we have found that the medieval views regarding the centrality of Earth are not dictated by Scripture. Some scholars today suggest that the modern literalist approach to understanding Scripture is not reconcilable with the way in which the ancient authors of Scripture understood what they were writing. According to this view, literalism is a modern construct, one that was not understood, let alone accepted, by the ancients. If this is true, then it is reasonable to conclude that the author of Genesis did not necessarily intend the Creation account to be read as historical fact. So, what is it then? Perhaps an allegory; perhaps a myth; or perhaps the best historical account that the ancients were able to construct based upon their limited understanding of the world. If, somehow the evolution/big bang theorists were able to definitively "prove" their theories (much like scientists have proven that the Earth is not the center of the universe), then this is perhaps the direction that Biblical interpretation would take.

The problem with all of this is the traditional Christian view that the Bible is inspired by God. If God inspired the Bible, if it is all God-breathed, then perhaps it is irrelevent what perspective the ancient authors would have held. But, we still have to consider why God would have inspired the Bible, written by ancient people and read by ancient, medieval, and modern people, in a modern literalistic viewpoint? I don't know how to answer this.

I only say all of this to suggest that we need to be careful about the modern assumption we bring to our understanding of Scripture. Perhaps, Scripture and science are more reconcilable than we think. But, we must also be aware that scientists are often as antagonistic to religion as Christians are to science. Furthermore, science is based on its own set of assumptions that are based on faith every bit as much as the Christian's belief in a literalist interpretative approach to the Bible. So, we shouldn't necessarily change our understanding of Scripture just because "science" says something new. IMO, the best science helps us to understand the glory of God -- it helps us to understand how God creates the physical world. Scripture, on the other hand, teaches us that God is the creator of it all, and more importantly, why He created it all. At this moment, there is much for which science does not have a definitive answer (such as the origin of species and the origin of the Universe), and for these questions, I am sure that religion and science will continue to debate. This does not necessarily mean that the two are mutually exclusive, but it also should not necessarily lead us to abandon our beliefs as to what the Bible teaches in favor of the current scientific theory.

Just a few thoughts. I am interested to hear others.

[DeanM]

I only say all of this to suggest that we need to be careful about the modern assumption we bring to our understanding of Scripture. Perhaps, Scripture and science are more reconcilable than we think. But, we must also be aware that scientists are often as antagonistic to religion as Christians are to science. Furthermore, science is based on its own set of assumptions that are based on faith every bit as much as the Christian's belief in a literalist interpretative approach to the Bible. So, we shouldn't necessarily change our understanding of Scripture just because "science" says something new. IMO, the best science helps us to understand the glory of God -- it helps us to understand how God creates the physical world. Scripture, on the other hand, teaches us that God is the creator of it all, and more importantly, why He created it all. At this moment, there is much for which science does not have a definitive answer (such as the origin of species and the origin of the Universe), and for these questions, I am sure that religion and science will continue to debate. This does not necessarily mean that the two are mutually exclusive, but it also should not necessarily lead us to abandon our beliefs as to what the Bible teaches in favor of the current scientific theory.

Just a few thoughts. I am interested to hear others.

You make some excellent points. I agree that no one should abandon their belief in the Bible.

As far as the issue between science and religion regarding the origin of the universe, one thing that always bothered me was this. Science cannot offer an explanation of what est the big bang into motion. Religion gives us this explanation.

The idea that sciences dismisses the religious explanation, frankly, worries me. At best, science can prove that the instant of origin must have been caused by something very powerful. They have no reason to conclude that it was not God.

Einstein himself was a deeply religious man. Some scientists do not have to eliminate religion to have their theories hold water.

And the religious folks might dispute the idea of the big bang. This also worries me. At the moment that God created the universe, what makes them think that the moment would have to be any different than the way that the big bang is described?

[DeanM]

Genesis 2:7

7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

If we read Genesis chapters 1 & 2 as chronological...there is room for much confusion...and it would seem that Chapter 2 conflicts with Chapter 1.

As we know...Scripture does not conflict with Scripture...

Genesis Chapter 2 expounds on Chapter 1 in greater detail and the focus changes from the creation of the world to God's creation of man...

As for the rest of your post...either you are joking or all I can say is...:doh:
I stand corrected! Thank you for pointing this out. I said that the Bible did not state that man was made of dust. My bad.

But even in this context, science could still agree with the scripture.

God might have taken some dust, breathed life into it, and then continued to modify it over generations (including the ape-like creature).

Science does not disagree with the fact that humans are made of 'dust.' I think that average adult is only a few pounds of chemicals, and mostly water. Man is a type of carbon-based life.

Now, before we disagree with the amount of time that God took to make the first man, first we need to note that the scriptures do not say how long this process took. Take this in sharp contrast to many other things of God's creation, which were listed as taking one day. But how long was one day?

Most Christians accept that the 'days' mentioned in Genesis could have been thousands of years long, in man's concept of time.

Why would the creation of man be any different?

[MoNiCa4316]

Good thoughts, Dies3l :)

The only problem I have with science is not regarding science itself, but how it is viewed. In my university, being 'scientific' is treated as a compliment, and anything else is considered superstition and 'not for the modern, progressive person'. 'Progress' is always considered something positive, and traditinalism is deeply misunderstood. It's all about progress for the sake of progress with no destination.

Two days ago, my psychology prof stopped in the middle of lecture to announce that "These structures that you see on the diagram evolved. That's just how it is, it's not magic. They evolved. Moving on...". He placed a special emphasis on the word 'evolved'. I don't know why he would do that. And equating God with magic only shows his disregard for the whole subject. Or the prof in my philosophy class, who spent the whole term trying to prove the non existence of God by disproving every creationist argument he could find. The problem is that many scientists seem to think that only science is able to give us true knowledge, and every thing else is just myth and fairytale. Religious people contribute to this too, of course. But it doesn't help that for many, 'science' means smart, and 'faith' means stupid.

The truth is that science is meant to address different questions than religion. I've met atheists who said "I would believe that the world has objective meaning and purpose to it, but there's no scientific evidence of that". :doh: How could there be? Unless of course you think that science is able to answer all of your questions.

There's this poem by CS Lewis which I think describes what happens when science tries to answer the 'why' questions. (of course, we know that Lewis was a Christian apologist and this is actually an ironic poem). Maybe that is the reason I find it so difficult to accept evolution...I know that there is meaning, purpose, and real objective goodness in this world, and evolution is a blind process that favours simply what is stronger. There is nothing about it that corresponds to the reality that I have found to be true. Of course, it may well be that there are Christians who can see God's glory in evolution..maybe they see it differently than I do, maybe they see a design in all this randomness, or perhaps they just like the idea that God is continuing to create species on earth.

Evolutionary Hymn

Lead us, Evolution, lead us
Up the future's endless stair
Chop us, change us, prod us, weed us.
For stagnation is despair:
Groping, guessing, yet progressing,
Lead us nobody knows where.

Wrong or justice, joy or sorrow,
In the present what are they
while there's always jam-tomorrow,
While we treat the onward way?
Never knowing where we're going,
We can never go astray.

To whatever variation,
Our posterity may turn
Hairy, squashy, or crustacean,
Bulbous-eyed or square of stern,
Tusked or toothless, mild or ruthless,
Towards that unknown god we yearn

Ask not if it's god or devil,
Brethren, lest your words imply
Static norms of good and evil
(As in Plato) throned on high;
Such scholastic, inelastic,
Abstract yardsticks we deny.

Far too long have sages vainly
Glossed great Nature's simple text:
He who runs can read it plainly,
'Goodness=what comes next'.
By evolving, Life is solving
All the questions we perplexed.

Oh then! Value means survival-
Value. If our progeny
Spreads and spawns and licks each rival,
That will prove its deity
(Far from pleasant, by our present,
Standards, though it may well be).

CS Lewis

[MoNiCa4316]

Now, before we disagree with the amount of time that God took to make the first man, first we need to note that the scriptures do not say how long this process took. Take this in sharp contrast to many other things of God's creation, which were listed as taking one day. But how long was one day?

Most Christians accept that the 'days' mentioned in Genesis could have been thousands of years long, in man's concept of time.

Why would the creation of man be any different?

That is a good point, and it may be true. :)

This of course does not mean that the Bible was not inspired by God. Perhaps the reality is so complex that we would never be able to understand it, and He simplified it for us and put it in a context that we would understand....sort of how Jesus used parables. I would still say however that Biblical events actually happened and are not merely symbolic, because if God is the author He is not limited to making up parables, He is able to make them actually happen.

[Dies3l]

Good thoughts, Dies3l :)

The only problem I have with science is not regarding science itself, but how it is viewed. In my university, being 'scientific' is treated as a compliment, and anything else is considered superstition and 'not for the modern, progressive person'. 'Progress' is always considered something positive, and traditinalism is deeply misunderstood. It's all about progress for the sake of progress with no destination.

. . .

I've met atheists who said "I would believe that the world has objective meaning and purpose to it, but there's no scientific evidence of that". :doh: How could there be? Unless of course you think that science is able to answer all of your questions.



I find that the way many scientists approach the scientific method is every bit as closed-minded as the way that many Christians treat the Bible. Some Christians believe that if a particular idea doesn't line up with their interpretation of the Bible, then it is immediately dismissable as nonsense. Many scientists, on the other hand, would come to the same assumption about any idea that cannot be proven using "the scientific method" even if the the scientific method is equally unlikely to disprove the same concept. The problem with both sides is that they assume that their chosen methodology is capable of constructing a complete and coherent understanding of the universe. Unfortunately, as has been stated already, theology and Biblical interpretation are directed toward answering different questions than the scientific method. Thus, there are questions that theology can't answer, but that science can. And, there are questions that science can't answer, but that theology can. To insist on one at the exclusion of the other seems to me to leave a person with a less than complete understanding of Creation. While I believe that it is sometimes necessary to prioritize (e.g., to reject science to the extent that it is irreconcilable with Scripture), we should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[DeanM]

That is a good point, and it may be true. :)

This of course does not mean that the Bible was not inspired by God. Perhaps the reality is so complex that we would never be able to understand it, and He simplified it for us and put it in a context that we would understand....sort of how Jesus used parables. I would still say however that Biblical events actually happened and are not merely symbolic, because if God is the author He is not limited to making up parables, He is able to make them actually happen.
I totally agree with this! Well said!

[MoNiCa4316]

I find that the way many scientists approach the scientific method is every bit as closed-minded as the way that many Christians treat the Bible. Some Christians believe that if a particular idea doesn't line up with their interpretation of the Bible, then it is immediately dismissable as nonsense. Many scientists, on the other hand, would come to the same assumption about any idea that cannot be proven using "the scientific method" even if the the scientific method is equally unlikely to disprove the same concept. The problem with both sides is that they assume that their chosen methodology is capable of constructing a complete and coherent understanding of the universe. Unfortunately, as has been stated already, theology and Biblical interpretation are directed toward answering different questions than the scientific method. Thus, there are questions that theology can't answer, but that science can. And, there are questions that science can't answer, but that theology can. To insist on one at the exclusion of the other seems to me to leave a person with a less than complete understanding of Creation. While I believe that it is sometimes necessary to prioritize (e.g., to reject science to the extent that it is irreconcilable with Scripture), we should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Yes, I agree...I do believe that the Bible is completely true but I do not think that we understand every bit of it..and some people reject ideas that don't match with their interpretation of Scripture, which might not be the correct one.
Maybe part of the problem is that many people (including myself) usually think of 'theology' as something about God and 'science' as something completely unrelated, even atheistic. But it doesn't have to be that way. Studying theology shows us a lot about the world too...it does not show us how many electrons a hydrogen atom has, but it shows the meaning. And once we know the meaning, we can understand the facts better...facts without meaning are not the whole truth. Which leads to the opposite mistake that science can give us all the answers, including the meaning, and once people realize they aren't seeing it there, they conclude it does not exist. Maybe it would help to see that 'theology' and 'science' are human constructs, and the gap between them is based solely on our lack of understanding. I think that to God, they are one and and the same, for He knows how facts and meanings are related....in the end, the way the world is made and the reason God made it are, I believe, extremely connected. Even united somehow. But I doubt that we would ever see all of these connections.

Some people might get offended at the statement that theology (or even the Bible) can not give us all the answers, but that's simply because truth is infinite and none of our methodologies are able to contain it. That would in fact be limiting God. The same thing could be said for science. But I want to add that I do believe that the Bible was inspired by God and that it's true in everything, just maybe not the way we sometimes think. The Bible is a spiritual book, which contains the information we need to take the right steps to salvation. It contains the gospel, the message of light. It is, in fact, a practical book, and what it says is meant to be lived out. In that, it is complete, and for that reason I agree with 'sola scriptura'. But since there is an infinite amount of things to learn about God, we can turn to other disciplines as well...not to learn about salvation, but perhaps, about electrons or trees or stars. As we study these other disciplines, we must not forget that we do not see really see stars until we see them as more than mere chemical reactions....we do not see the whole truth until we see the meaning.

If we insist on seeing things on the outside only, we must not complain that the inside remains hidden.

[MoNiCa4316]

I totally agree with this! Well said!

:)

[ThePreacherman]

[quote=DeanM;39226706]I have often found that science and religion seemed to be at odds with eachother. Evolution versus Creation is a good example of this.

But I have been looking into a few of these arguable topics lately, and have realized that the two schools of thought are not mutually exclusive.

Could evolution and creationism both be right? The more I look at at it, the more I have become convinced that we can have both.

------------------------------------------------------I'm sorry to say you are mistaken my dear.

There is absolutely no evidence for evolution. It is junk science.

Theistic evolution would have our mighty God be some kind of galactic chemist messing around with ideas until He finally got it right. Creating numerous misfits, allowing for a cruel existance for animals who need to struggle just to stay alive and not be eaten.

Evolution teaches that millions of animals lived and died before man even came on the scene.

The Bible teaches all death came into existance because of man's fall from grace.

Now, let's deal with evolution as it's looked upon by scientists who aren't afraid to tell it like it is:

John Chaikowsky in "Geology vs Physics" Geotimes (vol. 50, April 2005), p. 6
"Evolutionists have physics envy. They tell the public that the science behind evolution is
the same science that sent people to the moon and cures deseases. It's not. THe science
behind evolution is not empirical, but forensic....it's scientific investigations are after
the fact - no testing, no observations, no falsification, nothing at all like physics...
I think this is what the public discerns - that evolution is just a bunch of just-so stories
disgused as science."
-----------------------------------------------------
Dr. Wolfgang Smith Prof. of Mathematics Oregon State who held previous faculty
positions at MIT and UCLA in his book "Teilharddism and the new Religion"
writes the follOwing;

"...there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in
support of the thesis that macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred."
------------------------------------------
Albert Fleishman, Professor of Comparative Anatomy at Earlangen University as quoted in
"Victoria Institute" Volume 65
"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are becoming more and more
apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge,
nor does it suffice for our theoretical grasp of the facts. The Darwinian theory of
descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result
of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."
--------------------
L. Charles Birch, Professor of Biology, Sydney University as quoted in Nature,
April 1967
"Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in
extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity.
They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of
our training."
------------------------------------------------------
I could go on and on like this, however I would prefer you read some good articles instead I recommend an article by David Berlinski entitled "The Deniable Darwin".
http://www.rae.org/dendar.html

[ThePreacherman]

. Science cannot offer an explanation of what est the big bang into motion. Religion gives us this explanation.

The idea that sciences dismisses the religious explanation, frankly, worries me. At best, science can prove that the instant of origin must have been caused by something very powerful. They have no reason to conclude that it was not God.

Einstein himself was a deeply religious man. Some scientists do not have to eliminate religion to have their theories hold water.

And the religious folks might dispute the idea of the big bang. This also worries me. At the moment that God created the universe, what makes them think that the moment would have to be any different than the way that the big bang is described?
-----------------------------------------------------

The problem is my dear the big bang in secular understanding was a chaotic explosion, when in reality it was more like God using a marvelous paint brush and producing creativity.


There was an interesting article in the Newsweek of June 3, 1991
having to do with Astronomy and the new telescopes and methods of
studying the Universe and it seems that with these new stronger
telescopes and stuff, they have found things that pose new
problems for current theories. The article says
"Infrared and optical telescopes in orbit and on the ground found
galaxies arrayed in a complex, structured way - what
astrophysicist Alan Dressler of the Carnegie Institution's
observatories in Pasadena Calif., sees as "more like sculpture
than spatter...This finding challenged the dogma that the universe
is homogeneous, without structure."
The article went on to say;
"Even more bizarre is the discovery last year by A.S.Szalay of
Johns Hopkins university and collegues that galaxies clump
together every 400 million light-years...The periodic structures
are like periodic extinctions for geologists. Why should the
process that made galaxies pick out that pattern? It is so beyond
our understanding that theorists dismiss them for the time being"
hoping they're an illusion."
The article went on to say;
"That's why new instruments are crucial..they would rein in
theories long on fancy and short on data."
The article concludes with;
"Time and time again, astronomers have been humbled by the
realization that nature's imagination is much greater than their
own".

[Cris413]

Thank you Preacherman...

I agree... theistic evolution is not some cutting edge theology....leaving some stuck in the dark ages

Light has been shed on the dark ages and still it's rejected...

I personally do not consider that a belief in God and creation should bend to anything...

...although science does seem to be bending more and more to God...;)

And quantum physics and genetics (particularly the studies in mitochondrial DNA) seem to be leading the way...

[JHM]

Bye Now

[JHM]

Bye Now

[JHM]

Bye Now

[JHM]

Bye Now

[Cris413]

The plural "In image their own" is suggestive that more than one entity was involved in creation. Although it has a rather science fiction flavour, it suggests to me a visitation by a spaceship with a crew of "Planetary Engineers", whose business it is to convert uninhabitable planets into inhabitable ones; - (Which perforce would require a very large spaceship).

For some strange reason...I'm having visions of Rod Serling and hear the theme music to The Twilight Zone...

Oh...yeah...reminds me of the episode with Richard Baseheart who crash landed on this planet...

The only other person was a woman alien who also crash landed there....

Interestingly....His name was Adam...and her's sounded something like "Eve"...and when she told him her word for dirt...it sounded like "Earth"....

Amazing stuff...gotta love Rod Serling....;)

[JHM]

Bye Now

[JHM]

Bye Now

[JHM]

Bye Now

[JHM]

Bye Now

[Cris413]

What !! No comments ? Or is everyone just being too polite to call me a nutbar ?
I don't know if I would call anyone a nutbar...

but I'm still hearing the theme music to The Twilight Zone...:swoon:

:pink:

[JHM]

Bye Now

[Cris413]

@ Chris 413 : Did you read the whole series of posts before you came to that conclusion ? Or is what you are saying, a sort of "Gut" reaction ?
To be honest...no I didn't read all of it...for a couple reasons...

Once I got to a certain portion...mainly the portion I quoted...discernment told me I shouldn't fill my head with such...ummm....fanciful and unscriptural notions...

The other being your posts hurt my eyes and seem to be quite all over the place...

Another being...if I want to research these things...I would do it independently as I take pretty much everything I read through these threads with...a grain of salt....;)

Also...IMHO...true science...not the "scientific community" undeniably points to the Creator as such...

The holy, omniscient, omnipotent, sovereign, alpha and omega that He is...not some "alien" force dispatching His angels as some sort of "worker bee aliens"

I also consider...that science will never fully explain God...God will...however....fully explain science.

There is no way...and I mean ABSOLUTELY NO WAY...the creation will ever be able to fully grasp the Creator in our limited, puny, and flesh incrusted understandings....no matter how brilliant, intelligent or learned we are by earthly measures....

To expound on that a bit further...I also do not believe God would allow such understanding to the fullest measure here...on this planet...Remember the lesson of the Tower of Babel?

It seems quite important to Him...in His vast holy wisdom...that we walk by faith...and not by science...;) and not build our own towers into the heavenly places...

[JHM]

Bye Now

[Cris413]

Okay, answer condensed is : "I think you're a nutbar". Fair enough.That is what most people would think; :D perhaps...but I would NEVER call you that...;)


though a Jewish lawyer who has read my entire study doc. called it "brilliant". and my doctor, who is Chinese and in his fiftys, and has seen only that part of the doc. which relates to the destruction of the "Daughter of babylon" & "Daughter of Chaldea" called it a work of genius.

I consider a read through proverbs might prove beneficial...:pink:

I'm sure God has different views from what we may consider "brilliant" and "genius" as I noted in my post

...and since I am neither brilliant nor a genius...I'm just gonna have to trust HIM.;)



I suppose someone has to know me personally to take the trouble to slog through the more questionable parts to get to their explanations; and even then some of the issues are more than a little open to doubt. My suggestion to anyone seeking explaination...would be to slog through the Bible with the faith of a child and see how the Holy Spirit moves! :pink:

Re Science will never explain God, but God can explain science. Agreed
Re True science pointing to a creator, had you read a little further you would have found a quoted article on that. Yes...I saw that implication in several places as I glanced over your doc...but still...the body of the text overwhelmed it...IMO.

Re there is absolutely no way man can ever understand God, you are absolutely right
Re Grain of salt, wise practice, I think a lot of what I see is nonsense.

Anyway thanks for taking the trouble to answer.

It was no trouble at all...actually I enjoyed the conversation...and boy did you give me a chuckle with the "nutbar" reference...:D ;)

[JHM]

X

[Cris413]

K, Just curious about one thing. Whatever makes you think that God will find supporters of the Republican party acceptable in his sight?

Let's not go there...OK...

First of all...Dean might move you (or maybe just me) to a new thread if he considers you've gone off topic..or too far into some discussion in one of his threads...:doh:

I'm sure the closer we come to election time...there will be more than enough threads to discuss this in detail...

I will say, however, the only ones found to be "acceptable in His sight" with be those covered by the blood of the Lamb...regardless of any political affiliation...

Again...nice talking to ya..

[JHM]

Bye Now

[JolieHeart]

~ Applauds the opening topic ~

[DeanM]

I also consider...that science will never fully explain God...God will...however....fully explain science.



I agree with Cris 413. Well said.

[JHM]

Bye Now