Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Faith -vs- Science


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
65 replies to this topic

#1
hardy

hardy
  • Nonbeliever
  • 41 posts

Hello, I kind of don't understand this forum subtitle.

 

Is faith and science in competition?

 

To me they cover two different aspects or disciplines of our human experience, no different then English and Math are two different disciplines of education.

 

One is the study of the natural world; the other is the understanding of human condition given the supernatural.

 

I am not sure why the perception of competition when both function within their lanes of life just fine?

 

 



#2
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts
They are always going to interact, but do not necessarily have to be at odds with one another.

#3
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts
I would like to add that most people do not understand how science works. When people make statements like "science has never proven the age of the universe" they are missing the whole point. Or you will see comments like " science is just working from assumptions"...and you want to go "well no duh, that is what all science does". If people better understood science there would be less conflict.

#4
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,801 posts

Hello, I kind of don't understand this forum subtitle.

 

Is faith and science in competition?

 

To me they cover two different aspects or disciplines of our human experience, no different then English and Math are two different disciplines of education.

 

One is the study of the natural world; the other is the understanding of human condition given the supernatural.

 

I am not sure why the perception of competition when both function within their lanes of life just fine?

 

Science and faith are not in competition.  Science actualy operates from a measure of faith, actually.  Scientists are not rational automotons.  They are human beings with beliefs, which they hold to often as passionately as anyone else.

 

They refer to Evolution as a "theory."  But a theory is something that has been empirically proven. Evolution cannot be subjected to the emprical investivative process of a labratory because scientists can't replicate it.   Evolution is an untestable hypothesis, not a theory in the scientific definition of that term. 

 

Scientists work from a lot of assumptions that are not questioned and are not allowed to be questioned.  Evolution also fits into category of assumption as does a number of things like "the big bang, the notion that the earth is 15 billion years old, and so on.  None of these things are empirically proven and cannot be.  They are assumptions and nothing more.  But to challenge those assumptions is to bring down ridicule on one's self.  You are supposed to just toe the line and shut up and accept what scientists decree, no questions asked. 

 

Science is not at odds with the Bible.  The claims of fallible little men, are often at odds with the Bible.  The Bible is often written off by scientists and skeptics as an archaic, irrelevant book written by a bunch of dumb shepherds who knew nothing about the world and how it works.   

 

It  is that view leveled by the scientific world that is at odds with the Bible and with our faith.  But the actual work of science is a marvelous way of understanding the scope of God's creation.



#5
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts
The post above is why their is a conflict between the two, many people do not understand one or the other.
A scientific theory is not something that has been proven, a scientific theory is an explanation or a model based on observation, experimentation and reasoning. When people mischaracterize something like a theory the result is conflict.
Further, all science works from assumptions, this is the very basis of science. Those assumptions form the foundation from which hypothesis and theory build from.
If people who do not understand one side or the other would stick to what they know there would be much less conflict

#6
hardy

hardy
  • Nonbeliever
  • 41 posts

The post above is why their is a conflict between the two, many people do not understand one or the other.
A scientific theory is not something that has been proven, a scientific theory is an explanation or a model based on observation, experimentation and reasoning. When people mischaracterize something like a theory the result is conflict.
Further, all science works from assumptions, this is the very basis of science. Those assumptions form the foundation from which hypothesis and theory build from.
If people who do not understand one side or the other would stick to what they know there would be much less conflict

 

I concur.

 

I do think the misunderstanding of what science is, how science defines things, and how the scientific model works is perhaps the root of the problem.



#7
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,801 posts

A scientific theory is not something that has been proven, a scientific theory is an explanation or a model based on observation, experimentation and reasoning. When people mischaracterize something like a theory the result is conflict.
 

 

Not so.  Even I have had university level chem and biology classes.

 

In the scientific method, you observe a phenomenon, you develop a hypothesis to explain it.   You then design a test to falisify that hypothesis.   That is important.  Science is not about proving an hypothesis, but designs tests to disprove it.

 

You make a prediction and then test and test and test and then test some more.  You may conduct hundreds of tests in an attempt to falsify the hypothesis. The data is examined and the hypothesis is either accepted, rejected or modified and retested based on data.   

 

The data is examined after all testing has been done and a theory is developed based on the resulting data.  

 

The problems we run into with things like Evolution and the age of the earth is that neither can actually be called a "theory."   A theory is the product of empirical testing, none of which can be done where evolution or the age of the earth is concerned.

 

Further, all science works from assumptions, this is the very basis of science.

 

No, REAL science doesn't work from assumptions. 



#8
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts
I just ran across an even better definition of a scientific theory....
It is simply the most elaborate form of consistent scientific knowledge not yet disproved. A theory can never be proven, just disproven.

#9
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts
Shiloh, your two post contradict each other. In your first you say a theory has been proven. In your second you state science is not about proving.

#10
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,801 posts

Shiloh, your two post contradict each other. In your first you say a theory has been proven. In your second you state science is not about proving.

An hypothesis is "proven" by the process of falsification.  Science is about testing an hypothesis to disprove it.  If it cannot be falsified, it stands by default as proven and it graduates to the level of a theory.

 

There is no contradiction no matter how bad you want to manufacture one out of what I said. 



#11
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts
You cannot prove somethig by the lack of disproving it. There is no "proven by default" in science, this is your lack of understanding coming out again. A hypothesis can never be proven...just supported or not supported. You really just do not understand science at all

#12
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,721 posts

The post above is why their is a conflict between the two, many people do not understand one or the other.
A scientific theory is not something that has been proven, a scientific theory is an explanation or a model based on observation, experimentation and reasoning. When people mischaracterize something like a theory the result is conflict.
Further, all science works from assumptions, this is the very basis of science. Those assumptions form the foundation from which hypothesis and theory build from.
If people who do not understand one side or the other would stick to what they know there would be much less conflict

 

"Further, all science works from assumptions, this is the very basis of science."

 

That's Preposterous.

 

"Real" Science (Empirical/Operational) is based on the Scientific Method!!

 

So are you saying ASSUMPTION is the First Step in the process???  ASSUMPTION is what it's trying to ELIMINATE because it introduces BIAS.

 

Step 1:  OBSERVATION or ask a question....from an OBSERVATION not an ASSUMPTION.

 

Step 2: Do Literature Review/Background research

 

Step 3: Construct Hypothesis

 

Step 4: TEST/Experiment

 

Step 5: Analyze DATA/Results

 

Step 6:  Draw Conclusions.....  Valid Hypothesis or Invalid Hypothesis

 

Step 7:  Report Results

 

If invalidated....Back to the drawing board or STEP 3



#13
hardy

hardy
  • Nonbeliever
  • 41 posts

 

Hello, I kind of don't understand this forum subtitle.

 

Is faith and science in competition?

 

To me they cover two different aspects or disciplines of our human experience, no different then English and Math are two different disciplines of education.

 

One is the study of the natural world; the other is the understanding of human condition given the supernatural.

 

I am not sure why the perception of competition when both function within their lanes of life just fine?

 


It  is that view leveled by the scientific world that is at odds with the Bible and with our faith.  But the actual work of science is a marvelous way of understanding the scope of God's creation.

 

 

Yes, but seeing one is the study of the natural world, and the other presmised on faith, I wouldn't say "leveled" but science is just trying to explain the natural world to the best of their ability.

 

Two different disciplines trying to do the best to explain two different things does not mean they are at odds.

 

No?


Edited by joyjuice, 14 January 2014 - 02:07 PM.


#14
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts
There is no such thing as "operational" science. This is a false distinction made by non-science types and is not the view of the sciencetific community. The only time I have seen it used is by those trying to discredit parts of science they do not agree with.

#15
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,801 posts

You cannot prove somethig by the lack of disproving it. There is no "proven by default" in science, this is your lack of understanding coming out again. A hypothesis can never be proven...just supported or not supported. You really just do not understand science at all

I have had to conduct all kinds of experiments and was trained in how to use the scientific method.  I have had to be able to use the scientific method in order to pass final exams in college.  I know how it works. 

 

You test in order to disprove an hypothesis.  You are trying to falsify it. You develop in some cases, multiple kinds of tests in order to bring down the hypothesis from every angle.   If the hypothesis withstands falsification, if it can't be proven false, it stands by default as true.   It's really really simple, LFR. 



#16
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,801 posts

 

 

Hello, I kind of don't understand this forum subtitle.

 

Is faith and science in competition?

 

To me they cover two different aspects or disciplines of our human experience, no different then English and Math are two different disciplines of education.

 

One is the study of the natural world; the other is the understanding of human condition given the supernatural.

 

I am not sure why the perception of competition when both function within their lanes of life just fine?

 


It  is that view leveled by the scientific world that is at odds with the Bible and with our faith.  But the actual work of science is a marvelous way of understanding the scope of God's creation.

 

 

Yes, but seeing one is the study of the natural world, and the other presmised on faith, I wouldn't say "leveled" but science is just trying to explain the natural world to the best of their ability.

 

Two different disciplines trying to do the best to explain two different things does not mean they are at odds.

 

No?

 

I didn't say they were at odds.  I said the following:

 

"The Bible is often written off by scientists and skeptics as an archaic, irrelevant book written by a bunch of dumb shepherds who knew nothing about the world and how it works.   It  is that view leveled by the scientific world that is at odds with the Bible and with our faith.  But the actual work of science is a marvelous way of understanding the scope of God's creation."

 

Scientists are not rational automotons. There is an agenda afoot to discredit the Christian faith in the science world and their primary weapon is evolution. 

 

There are many scientists who DO believe that God is our Creator and they approach science as a means of glorifying God, but they are written off as crackpots and religious nuts and fanatics. 



#17
hardy

hardy
  • Nonbeliever
  • 41 posts

 

 

 

Hello, I kind of don't understand this forum subtitle.

 

Is faith and science in competition?

 

To me they cover two different aspects or disciplines of our human experience, no different then English and Math are two different disciplines of education.

 

One is the study of the natural world; the other is the understanding of human condition given the supernatural.

 

I am not sure why the perception of competition when both function within their lanes of life just fine?

 


It  is that view leveled by the scientific world that is at odds with the Bible and with our faith.  But the actual work of science is a marvelous way of understanding the scope of God's creation.

 

 

Yes, but seeing one is the study of the natural world, and the other presmised on faith, I wouldn't say "leveled" but science is just trying to explain the natural world to the best of their ability.

 

Two different disciplines trying to do the best to explain two different things does not mean they are at odds.

 

No?

 

I didn't say they were at odds.  I said the following:

 

"The Bible is often written off by scientists and skeptics as an archaic, irrelevant book written by a bunch of dumb shepherds who knew nothing about the world and how it works.   It  is that view leveled by the scientific world that is at odds with the Bible and with our faith.  But the actual work of science is a marvelous way of understanding the scope of God's creation."

 

Scientists are not rational automotons. There is an agenda afoot to discredit the Christian faith in the science world and their primary weapon is evolution. 

 

There are many scientists who DO believe that God is our Creator and they approach science as a means of glorifying God, but they are written off as crackpots and religious nuts and fanatics. 

 

 

I don't think the Bible is "written off" for those reasons.

I think most scientists understand time, context, and intent when it comes to the Bible.

You note those who discredit it, but I think the exception taken is not the book, but the idea that the book has anything to do with science.

It doesn't.

I think what you're seeing is the push back.



#18
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,801 posts
I don't think the Bible is "written off" for those reasons

 

.It is written off for those reasons many times whether you make room for that fact, or not.

 

I think most scientists understand time, context, and intent when it comes to the Bible.

I think believing scientists do.  Atheistic scientists don't care.

 

You note those who discredit it, but I think the exception taken is not the book, but the idea that the book has anything to do with science.

It doesn't.

 

No, they reject the book.  



#19
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,721 posts

There is no such thing as "operational" science. This is a false distinction made by non-science types and is not the view of the sciencetific community. The only time I have seen it used is by those trying to discredit parts of science they do not agree with.

 

Again Preposterous,

 

Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation. Wiki

 

Hence: Empirical Science or "Operational Science" (This is an Industry Term for Empirical Science) to delineate it if from Historical Sciences (Paleontology, Archeology, Anthropology, Cosmology, evolution et al)

 

With the Empirical Sciences (Biology, Chemistry, Physics, et al), by their very nature deal with OBSERVATIONS of the present and so are ripe for Experiments/TESTS.  Conversely Historical Sciences study past events; therefore, you can't do EXPERIMENTS on past events and you can't verify or validate any hypothesis.

 

For example....

 

“Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science. A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology.”

(Cho, Adrian, A singular conundrum: How odd is our universe? Science 3171848–1850, 2007.)

 

So having said that...."Evolutionary Biology" is a contradiction in terms.  They are mixing Empirical with Historical Science.



#20
WillfromTexas

WillfromTexas

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 304 posts

We shouldn't be so broad in our generalizations.  There's actually many scientists that believe in God or even Christians.  Some of the greatest scientists that ever lived such as Isaac Newton were Christian and even wrote many notes on End Time prophecy.

 

As Christians we should never accept anything at odds with the Bible such as evolution, dna manipulation, God particles, etc...  But there's many things in science that back up what the Bible has said all along.  Such as humans being made from the dust of the ground and science finds we are made of the exact elements.

 

Science and faith don't have to be at odds and shouldn't be at odds in many areas.  Here I am generalizing science myself...

 

There's all kinds of science from archeology, cosmology, chemistry, biology, etc...  To say science hasn't benefitted mankind is untrue and I believe God works through science at times.  If they ever cure cancer or aids I'll believe that will be a gift from God.

 

We just need to have our Christian filters on and filter out anything against the Bible.  The forum section name seems unfortunate to me and cast my vote for a better one.






Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network