| |
| Genesis and science agree |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| daytonturner |
 Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:35 am Post subject: Genesis and science agree |
 |
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 03 Oct 2005
Posts: 771
Location: Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
|
It is a 10-year-old, and quite lengthy treatise, but I am herewith providing a link to a treatise by a Christian scientist which purports to show harmony between science and the Genesis account of creation.
The author, Don Stoner (whose name probably should not be taken literally), is (was?) a physicist and computer software engineer and, I assume, a Christian. His basic premise is that if the Bible and the Universe are both creations of God, they must be totally compatible and without any disagreement wherein they interrelate.
He points out that both scientists and theologians are seeking truth. He suggests that wherein there appear to be conflicts between the Bible and science, it is because either the theologians have misunderstood the scriptures or science has misunderstood the universe or, in some cases, both have misunderstood their area of focus. For example, both science and the Church were involved in repudiating Galileo, not just the Church as many atheists try to contend.
I think this will be particularly helpful for those of you who object to creationism on the basis of young earth advocates because Stoner debunks young-earth theory. It will give you much ammunition to combat young earth advocates.
http://www.answers.org/newlook/NEWLOOK.HTM#Top
If you feel comfortable with what Stoner has to say on that matter, you might also enjoy his chastisement of Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box.
http://answers.org/newlook/behe2.html
_________________
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein
If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| geezer |
| Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:50 pm Post subject: Re: Genesis and science agree |
|
|
Forum Masters Degree
Joined: 12 Jun 2005
Posts: 513
Location: london
|
| daytonturner wrote: |
It is a 10-year-old, and quite lengthy treatise, but I am herewith providing a link to a treatise by a Christian scientist
|
what! a christian what! lol.
No such thing, the two are mutually exclusive. whether it ten years, fifty years or a million years it would all be complete bollocks written by a person who lol, thinks christian and science go together.
dayton: you are funny.
_________________
"Before you Believe in anything, make sure you look for the BeLIEve hidden within.." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| daytonturner |
| Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 03 Oct 2005
Posts: 771
Location: Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
|
Apparently, Geezer is so blinded and closed minded by his non-belief that he has not even taken time to read the article read the article, but offering rants instead of comment.
_________________
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein
If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| geezer |
| Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Masters Degree
Joined: 12 Jun 2005
Posts: 513
Location: london
|
| daytonturner wrote: |
| Apparently, Geezer is so blinded and closed minded by his non-belief that he has not even taken time to read the article read the article, but offering rants instead of comment. |
oh I looked lol but a christian What lol
"It would be nice to be able to show scientists who are atheists the error of their ways and to lead them to Christ. It would also be nice to be able to remove some untrue "scientific" teachings from our public schools' curriculum. But before we correct others, we must apply Jesus' admonition (quoted above) and remove errors from our own position."
http://www.answers.org/newlook/NLCHPTR1.HTM#Top
once you've done that get back to us ok.
See you in a billion years lol.
_________________
"Before you Believe in anything, make sure you look for the BeLIEve hidden within.." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Obviously |
| Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 890
Location: Norway
|
| Quote: |
| It is a 10-year-old, and quite lengthy treatise, but I am herewith providing a link to a treatise by a Christian scientist which purports to show harmony between science and the Genesis account of creation. |
Science does not comment on the supernatural, and there's also no such thing called a christian scientist or an atheist scientist. Science is science regardless to what a person personally believes. Because that is irrelevant.
_________________
“After Darwin, God's role changes from being the designer of all creatures, great and small, to being the designer of the laws of nature, from which natural selection can unfold, to being just perhaps the chooser of the laws.”
~ Daniel C. Dennett |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| daytonturner |
| Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 03 Oct 2005
Posts: 771
Location: Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
|
Obviously says:
| Quote: |
Science does not comment on the supernatural, and there's also no such thing called a christian scientist or an atheist scientist. Science is science regardless to what a person personally believes. Because that is irrelevant. (emphasis mine.) |
The problem is that many non-religious scientistics make it an issue by implying that the knowledge gained by science makes God irrelevant. Religion has never suggested that God makes science irrelevant. It is not the Godly who attempt to ignore the truths of science; it is a small portion of the scientism crowd which attempts to ignore the truths of God.
There are people who are Christians and there are people who are scientists. Some people are Christians and scientists (about two-thirds of the scientists in the U.S.); some people are Christians, but not scientists; some people are scientists but not Christians; some people are neither. I have a feeling that most of the people who post here are in that final group, people who know nothing of God and not all that much about science.
I sometimes wonder if the atheists who post on this forum have spent their life in a vacuum. Out here in the rest of the world, there is considerable interaction between science and religion. Unfortunately, some folks ignore this or are just ignorant of it.
Obviously, in saying “science is science regardless of what a person . . . believes” is merely an echo of the concept that truth is truth no matter what a person may believe. Many of us in the Christian community believe that God has expressed himself to us in both the Bible and the Universe. Some people seek only half the story – some through theology and some through science. Some of us want to see Him from both perspectives.
_________________
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein
If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| prasit |
| Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 395
|
daytonturner wrote:
| Quote: |
| The problem is that many non-religious scientistics make it an issue by implying that the knowledge gained by science makes God irrelevant. Religion has never suggested that God makes science irrelevant. |
In the same way that fact makes lie irrelevant, but never that lie makes fact irrelevant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| TvEye |
| Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 10 Nov 2007
Posts: 381
Location: South Africa
|
Explain why an omniscient and omnipotent god had the need to create our species by trial-and-error ("Gradually improving a mousetrap")? Were he omniscient, he would already know the exact genetic code for any proposed species.
Trial-and-error states outright that knowledge existed, which god did not possess. He could not have been omniscient. Were he omnipotent, he could have created man directly, with no need for the tedious route of evolution.
You could argue that god chose to use evolution as his means of creation. An omniscient being would know that man would eventually figure out evolution and genetic engineering, and, were he to create man directly, there would be no need for faith (as there would be no other explanation for man, other than god).
Either way, god is an unnecessary complication. If we can demonstrate how something could occur naturally, why is there any reason to believe that a supernatural being was involved? The author of that article himself states that:
| Quote: |
| Perhaps, historically, men have been too willing to attribute to God anything they did not understand. |
There are, of course, other means by which we could test the existence of an omniscient being.
The bible itself is not the story of the redemption of man, but the story of the redemption of god. In the old testament, god is a vengeful force. He teaches the message of "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth", and "do to him as he had conspired to do to his brother" (To quote Gandhi, "An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind"). He then sends his only begotten son to earth.
Through his son, he learns understanding of man. He learns the psychology of the being which he has created. With this new understanding, he then changes and becomes the loving, forgiving god of the new testament. His message changes from one of vengeance to one of understanding the flawed nature of man. The message of Christ is the following:
| Quote: |
| You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. |
Were there an omniscient, omnipotent being, this being would already have understood man perfectly. He would not have changed his mind. His initial message would be the message of ultimate truth.
_________________
"First we build the tools, then they build us" - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Obviously |
| Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 5:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 890
Location: Norway
|
| daytonturner wrote: |
The problem is that many non-religious scientistics make it an issue by implying that the knowledge gained by science makes God irrelevant. Religion has never suggested that God makes science irrelevant. It is not the Godly who attempt to ignore the truths of science; it is a small portion of the scientism crowd which attempts to ignore the truths of God.
There are people who are Christians and there are people who are scientists. Some people are Christians and scientists (about two-thirds of the scientists in the U.S.); some people are Christians, but not scientists; some people are scientists but not Christians; some people are neither. I have a feeling that most of the people who post here are in that final group, people who know nothing of God and not all that much about science.
I sometimes wonder if the atheists who post on this forum have spent their life in a vacuum. Out here in the rest of the world, there is considerable interaction between science and religion. Unfortunately, some folks ignore this or are just ignorant of it.
Obviously, in saying “science is science regardless of what a person . . . believes” is merely an echo of the concept that truth is truth no matter what a person may believe. Many of us in the Christian community believe that God has expressed himself to us in both the Bible and the Universe. Some people seek only half the story – some through theology and some through science. Some of us want to see Him from both perspectives. |
Perhaps this might help you:
Science
Scientific Method
Philosophy of Science
Learn the difference:
Psuedoscience
| Wiki - Psuedoscience wrote: |
| In the mid-20th Century Karl Popper suggested the criterion of falsifiability to distinguish science from non-science.[14] Statements such as "God created the universe" may be true or false, but they are not falsifiable, so they are not scientific; they lie outside the scope of science. Popper subdivided non-science into philosophical, mathematical, mythological, religious and/or metaphysical formulations on the one hand, and pseudoscientific formulations on the other—though without providing clear criteria for the differences.[15] He gave astrology and psychoanalysis as examples of pseudoscience, and Einstein's theory of relativity as an example of science. More recently, Paul Thagard (1978) proposed that pseudoscience is primarily distinguishable from science when it is less progressive than alternative theories over a long period of time, and the selective and or lack of attempts by proponents to solve problems with the theory.[16] Mario Bunge has suggested the categories of "belief fields" and "research fields" to help distinguish between science and pseudoscience.[17] |
_________________
“After Darwin, God's role changes from being the designer of all creatures, great and small, to being the designer of the laws of nature, from which natural selection can unfold, to being just perhaps the chooser of the laws.”
~ Daniel C. Dennett |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| daytonturner |
| Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 03 Oct 2005
Posts: 771
Location: Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
|
TvEye observes:
| Quote: |
| Explain why an omniscient and omnipotent god had the need to create our species by trial-and-error ("Gradually improving a mousetrap")? |
Who said God created anything by trial and error? Certainly not in the Bible, and certainly not in the Strong “New Look” article. The mouse trap example was in Strong’s criticism of Behe’s book. Behe used the mousetrap as an example of an irreducibly complex system. Strong devises a scenario in which a simple box trap is slowly converted by minute increments into a modern mouse trap.
This, actually answers another of TvEye’s questions:
| Quote: |
| If we can demonstrate how something could occur naturally, why is there any reason to believe that a supernatural being was involved? |
Just because we can come up with a speculative demonstration of how something could possible occur, does not prove that is how it happened. In the mouse trap demonstration Stoner came up with a step-by-step way that a box trap could have been improved upon in incremental steps to produce today’s spring loaded mouse trap. But that is not how the modern mousetrap was actually developed.
The rest of TvEye’s post is one of the typical atheist/agnostic rants – “God has not done things the way I think He should have done them and that should prove to the whole world He does not exist.” Sorry, it doesn't.
I am not sure I figured out obviously’s point. He seems to have presented a set of definitions which nobody argues with. Soooooooooo?
_________________
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein
If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ophiolite |
| Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:34 am Post subject: Re: Genesis and science agree |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 4016
Location: Scotland
|
| geezer wrote: |
what! a christian what! lol.
No such thing, the two are mutually exclusive. . |
Tell that to Newton or Galileo or (while he was formulating his theory of evolution) Darwin, or Le Maitre, or a host of other scientists who just happen to be Christian, or Muslim, or Jewish.
What does appear to be exclusive is a post from yourself on the subject of religion that is not cranium deep in dogmatic nonsense.
_________________
The Universe is not only weirder than we imagine it is weirder than we can imagine. J.B.S.Haldane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sunshinewarrior |
| Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 6:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 825
Location: London
|
| daytonturner wrote: |
Obviously says:
| Quote: |
Science does not comment on the supernatural, and there's also no such thing called a christian scientist or an atheist scientist. Science is science regardless to what a person personally believes. Because that is irrelevant. (emphasis mine.) |
The problem is that many non-religious scientistics make it an issue by implying that the knowledge gained by science makes God irrelevant. Religion has never suggested that God makes science irrelevant. It is not the Godly who attempt to ignore the truths of science; it is a small portion of the scientism crowd which attempts to ignore the truths of God.
|
Coming it a bit too strong aren't we?
There are innumerable examples of religious people claiming that science is irrelevant, is wrong, is not a patch on the holy book (whichever one they happen to be using) and so on.
Currently the US is beset by Creationists (now a/k/a Intelligent Designists) who are determined to make people ignore what is uncontroversial science viz evolution by natural selection and turn it into a political and social battle for religion.
Whether or not 'god' has or has delivered truths, what we (yes, nasty atheistic scientistic crochety old buggers like me) would like to know is: what value of truth are you using here?
I haven't yet met a person of religion who uses the same value for the word truth as scientists use (albeit in a qualified way) for the truths of science. If there are two different meanings to this then it's not the scientists or atheists who are trying to make them part of the same argument; we're simply pointing out that in most cases the word 'truth', as used by a person of religion speaking of religious 'truths', refers to unreproducible, intangible, subjective and personal comments which, if objected to, redound upon us because our objections are allegedly 'offensive'.
cheer
shanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Obviously |
| Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:26 am Post subject: Re: Genesis and science agree |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 890
Location: Norway
|
| Ophiolite wrote: |
Tell that to Newton or Galileo or (while he was formulating his theory of evolution) Darwin, or Le Maitre, or a host of other scientists who just happen to be Christian, or Muslim, or Jewish.
What does appear to be exclusive is a post from yourself on the subject of religion that is not cranium deep in dogmatic nonsense. |
I presume they didn't let their religion interfere with their science. I am of the opinion that this is why there's nothing called a christian or atheist scientists, there are only scientists. If personal opinions/belief interferes with science, then it turns into psuedoscience.
_________________
“After Darwin, God's role changes from being the designer of all creatures, great and small, to being the designer of the laws of nature, from which natural selection can unfold, to being just perhaps the chooser of the laws.”
~ Daniel C. Dennett |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ophiolite |
| Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:06 am Post subject: Re: Genesis and science agree |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 4016
Location: Scotland
|
| Obviously wrote: |
| I presume they didn't let their religion interfere with their science. |
Nor did they let their science interfere with their religion. Science and religion use two viable, yet different approaches to understanding the Universe. Practioners of both can be guilty of using blind dogma: in that case they become pseudoscientists or cultists. In neither case should we use their examples and existence to condemn science or religion, rather we should recognise their personal failure and clearly separate it from the systems and paradigms they have corrupted.
_________________
The Universe is not only weirder than we imagine it is weirder than we can imagine. J.B.S.Haldane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| daytonturner |
| Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 03 Oct 2005
Posts: 771
Location: Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
|
obviously opines:
| Quote: |
| I presume they didn't let their religion interfere with their science. I am of the opinion that this is why there's nothing called a christian or atheist scientists, there are only scientists. If personal opinions/belief interferes with science, then it turns into psuedoscience. |
Let us remember that Einstein said "Imagination is more important than knowledge." Now let us realize that the scientismists claim to rely on "only what they know." Where does imagination fit into "only what you know?" There is no imagination in what we already know.
I would agree that scientists who happen to also be religious do not let religion interfere with science. Rather, they allow the two to work together to expand their imagination.
I would agree that scientists don't usually go around wearing their religious beliefs on their sleeves nor do most people bother to differentiate or categorize scientists on that basis. But sometimes it comes up and it becomes time for a reality check which shows us that most scientists believe the universe and life could not have happened by accident any more than the automobiles we drive happened by accident.
I do not understand how anyone can look at an automobile and realize that its complexity requires it to have been designed and built while looking at the far more complex and fine tuned universe and believing that it occurred through a sequence of accidents and happenstance.
It is our human nature to make observations and gather data and attempt to determine what they mean. All of us ask what do these observations and facts tell us about the world. Others of us also ask what do these facts tell us about God. And we are accused of limiting our investigation. It is we who have the expanded investigation.
_________________
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein
If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
