Christianity and science

[Bowap]

I think it is absolutely self-evident, that the Theory of Evolution inevitably leads a person to the gospel of a G-dless world...it circumnavigates the need for a Creator, and those that follow its guide-lines consistantly call the Bible myth, allegoric, or simply lies, and in many instances seek to supplant biblical truth with so-called scientific truth. Being an atheist is almost a required necessity, and an unsung creed of evolution-based science.

This is so easily falsified but just providing counter examples, Bible-believing Christians who are qualified scientists and readily accept evolution as being supported by overwhelming evidence and a unifying biological theory; Francis Collins, Darrel Falk, Denis Lamoureux, Richard Colling, Steve Matheson, Keith Miller, Robert T. Bakker, R. J. Berry, Denis Alexander, Graeme Finlay, James Kidder, Douglas Hayworth, Dennis Venema*, and many, many more. I could go on and list more liberal Christians too, and even some promoters of Intelligent Design for example (Michael Behe accepts common descent), but I think I've made my point. The scientific community is not biased against creationism/ID, they simply reject them as they rely either on untestable claims (the direct intervention of a supernatural being into the natural world) or those that are testable but have been proven wrong by peer-reviewed research. The only problem is that 'creation scientists' have a theological attachment to a literal view of the Bible which is an a-priori belief which is not open to any scrutiny, and must be upheld at all costs, no matter how much evidence there is against it (check out the 'statement of faith' many of the websites have). They are welcome to produce any research they might have to the rest of scientific community, but only if they are willing to accept they might be wrong, however they aren't, and so they don't contribute to the scientific process, don't add to the established pool of scientific knowledge and so can't be considered 'scientists' according to any reasonable understanding of that term.

I'm sorry, but you have no right to determine how people understand parts of the Bible, if you are too theologically unsophisticated to understand the Bible in any other way than with the most literal, unquestioning and mindess of interpretations then that's your problem, but please, don't go round insisting that other Christians be as dogmatic, and unopen to reason and evidence as you clearly are.

* He actually has a series of 3 videos here - http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/vid...ianity-biology/ - talking about all of this.

Edited May 21, 2009 by Bowap

[nebula]

The scientific community is not biased against creationism/ID,

Could have fooled me!

[Bowap]

OK, I'll rephrase it, the scientific community is not in principle biased against anyone who is willing to gather research and present their ideas to peer-review, whereby qualified people can analyze the claims that are being made. The problem is that the scientific community has addressed every claim ever put forward by a creationist/ I.D supporter and ultimately dismissed it as erroneous. However, these people continue to make the same assertions, and stick rigidly to their ideas, as they are unwilling to accept that they are wrong. That is because creationism is based on ideology, not science, these ideas are 'folk science', or pseudoscience, they attempt to provide a theologically acceptable 'model' for a certain worldview, but they are utterly useless as scientific paradigms to understand the natural world. They provide no new insights into scientific problems, and the 'science' behind them is so paper thin that it is immediately seen through by anyone with relevant qualifications and expertise. These ideas don't have to stand up to scientific scrutiny, that's why they are found on websites, not in the scientific literature, and they are almost never promoted by people with any training or experience in the scientific arena. These ideas only have to be convincing enough to unqualified members of the public so that they sound sufficiently plausible, and so provide some 'scientific' or evidential credibility for a certain belief system.

[MorningGlory]

OK, I'll rephrase it, the scientific community is not in principle biased against anyone who is willing to gather research and present their ideas to peer-review, whereby qualified people can analyze the claims that are being made. The problem is that the scientific community has addressed every claim ever put forward by a creationist/ I.D supporter and ultimately dismissed it as erroneous. However, these people continue to make the same assertions, and stick rigidly to their ideas, as they are unwilling to accept that they are wrong. That is because creationism is based on ideology, not science, these ideas are 'folk science', or pseudoscience, they attempt to provide a theologically acceptable 'model' for a certain worldview, but they are utterly useless as scientific paradigms to understand the natural world. They provide no new insights into scientific problems, and the 'science' behind them is so paper thin that it is immediately seen through by anyone with relevant qualifications and expertise. These ideas don't have to stand up to scientific scrutiny, that's why they are found on websites, not in the scientific literature, and they are almost never promoted by people with any training or experience in the scientific arena. These ideas only have to be convincing enough to unqualified members of the public so that they sound sufficiently plausible, and so provide some 'scientific' or evidential credibility for a certain belief system.

In other words...Creationism doesn't have to be a legitimate view or make much sense since it's only believed by those dumb Christians and others who believe in (gasp!) God? You're not a believer, are you?

[Believer1997]

OK, I'll rephrase it, the scientific community is not in principle biased against anyone who is willing to gather research and present their ideas to peer-review, whereby qualified people can analyze the claims that are being made. The problem is that the scientific community has addressed every claim ever put forward by a creationist/ I.D supporter and ultimately dismissed it as erroneous. However, these people continue to make the same assertions, and stick rigidly to their ideas, as they are unwilling to accept that they are wrong. That is because creationism is based on ideology, not science, these ideas are 'folk science', or pseudoscience, they attempt to provide a theologically acceptable 'model' for a certain worldview, but they are utterly useless as scientific paradigms to understand the natural world. They provide no new insights into scientific problems, and the 'science' behind them is so paper thin that it is immediately seen through by anyone with relevant qualifications and expertise. These ideas don't have to stand up to scientific scrutiny, that's why they are found on websites, not in the scientific literature, and they are almost never promoted by people with any training or experience in the scientific arena. These ideas only have to be convincing enough to unqualified members of the public so that they sound sufficiently plausible, and so provide some 'scientific' or evidential credibility for a certain belief system.

Are you one of the "qualified" people who can analyze the claims? I also would like you to answer the question - are you a Christian?

[Botz]

I think it is absolutely self-evident, that the Theory of Evolution inevitably leads a person to the gospel of a G-dless world...it circumnavigates the need for a Creator, and those that follow its guide-lines consistantly call the Bible myth, allegoric, or simply lies, and in many instances seek to supplant biblical truth with so-called scientific truth. Being an atheist is almost a required necessity, and an unsung creed of evolution-based science.

I'm sorry, but you have no right to determine how people understand parts of the Bible, if you are too theologically unsophisticated to understand the Bible in any other way than with the most literal, unquestioning and mindess of interpretations then that's your problem, but please, don't go round insisting that other Christians be as dogmatic, and unopen to reason and evidence as you clearly are.

* He actually has a series of 3 videos here - http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/vid...ianity-biology/ - talking about all of this.

Lol... 'Theologically unsophisticated' that is a good one, I have never been called that euphemism before....I wonder what I need to do to become 'theologically sophisticated'.

You are jumping the gun a bit in some of your observations of what you think I believe, and supplying your own biased adjectives...

unquestioning and mindess

...plus being 'dogmatic, and unopen to reason and evidence'...just because I have indicated I don't happen to swallow some aspects of evolutionary based science, and I know many other Believers hold the same position, not out of some blind adhesion to a religious ideal, but because the science demonstrated does not convince us, and because the majority of those who promote it have an agenda, and that is to rid the world of ignorance....which basically covers all those people that believe in a higher being etc. Nowadays it is not a hidden agenda, but an overt militant ideology that believes salvation of the human race comes through science, and man has now through sciene demonstrated beyond doubt the foolishness of any belief in a Creator.

[MorningGlory]

I think it is absolutely self-evident, that the Theory of Evolution inevitably leads a person to the gospel of a G-dless world...it circumnavigates the need for a Creator, and those that follow its guide-lines consistantly call the Bible myth, allegoric, or simply lies, and in many instances seek to supplant biblical truth with so-called scientific truth. Being an atheist is almost a required necessity, and an unsung creed of evolution-based science.

I'm sorry, but you have no right to determine how people understand parts of the Bible, if you are too theologically unsophisticated to understand the Bible in any other way than with the most literal, unquestioning and mindess of interpretations then that's your problem, but please, don't go round insisting that other Christians be as dogmatic, and unopen to reason and evidence as you clearly are.

* He actually has a series of 3 videos here - http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/vid...ianity-biology/ - talking about all of this.

Lol... 'Theologically unsophisticated' that is a good one, I have never been called that euphormism before....I wonder what I need to do to become 'theologically sophisticated'.

You are jumping the gun a bit in some of your observations of what you think I believe, and supplying your own biased adjectives...

unquestioning and mindess

...plus being 'dogmatic, and unopen to reason and evidence'...just because I have indicated I don't happen to swallow some aspects of evolutionary based science, and I know many other Believers hold the same position, not out of some blind adhesion to a religious ideal, but because the science demonstrated does not convince us, and because the majority of those who promote it have an agenda, and that is to rid the world of ignorance....which basically covers all those people that believe in a higher being etc. Nowadays it is not a hidden agenda, but an overt militant ideology that believes salvation of the human race comes through science, and man has now through sciene demonstrated beyond doubt the foolishness of any belief in a Creator.

Why are you surprised by the canned rhetoric in that post? I've read every word of that before at different times here and on other forums. Anyone that comes prepared with 23 videos on their first post....has a agenda.

[Guest shiloh357]

This is so easily falsified but just providing counter examples, Bible-believing Christians who are qualified scientists and readily accept evolution as being supported by overwhelming evidence and a unifying biological theory; Francis Collins, Darrel Falk, Denis Lamoureux, Richard Colling, Steve Matheson, Keith Miller, Robert T. Bakker, R. J. Berry, Denis Alexander, Graeme Finlay, James Kidder, Douglas Hayworth, Dennis Venema*, and many, many more. I could go on and list more liberal Christians too, and even some promoters of Intelligent Design for example (Michael Behe accepts common descent), but I think I've made my point.

The problem is that simply finding Christians who hold to a certain position does not mean the position is valid. In order to hold to the evolutionary model, the notion of God as Creator has to be discarded. Evolution, according to its most qualified proponents is an iimpersonal, unguided process. Properly understood, Evolution is not the result of a intelligent entity setting it in motion, much less guiding it. Evolution from start to finish, is purely naturalistic.

The problem is that this cannot be reconciled with the Bible which holds to an account that demonstrates an polar opposite position that all of Creation is the result of a personal God who not only created the world/univsere, but also upholds it and guides it. The Bible even goes so far as to repeatedly identify Jesus, Himself as the Creator and sustainer of the universe.

In order to hold to evolutionary theory, one must sacrifice the biblical account. The two simply cannot be both be true.

The scientific community is not biased against creationism/ID, they simply reject them as they rely either on untestable claims (the direct intervention of a supernatural being into the natural world) or those that are testable but have been proven wrong by peer-reviewed research. The only problem is that 'creation scientists' have a theological attachment to a literal view of the Bible which is an a-priori belief which is not open to any scrutiny, and must be upheld at all costs, no matter how much evidence there is against it (check out the 'statement of faith' many of the websites have). They are welcome to produce any research they might have to the rest of scientific community, but only if they are willing to accept they might be wrong, however they aren't, and so they don't contribute to the scientific process, don't add to the established pool of scientific knowledge and so can't be considered 'scientists' according to any reasonable understanding of that term.

The reason Creationism is held to unwaveringly is because we as Christians believe in the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture and that God has preserved His Word throughout the millenia.

You have hit on an important point, though. There is a dynamic here that is outside the realm of science.

I'm sorry, but you have no right to determine how people understand parts of the Bible, if you are too theologically unsophisticated to understand the Bible in any other way than with the most literal, unquestioning and mindess of interpretations then that's your problem, but please, don't go round insisting that other Christians be as dogmatic, and unopen to reason and evidence as you clearly are.

This demonsrates a great deal of hostility toward those who hold to the creation model.

[Bowap]

I do have an agenda, to make other Christians understand that it damages Christianity in the eyes of educated people when promoters of pseudoscience go around saying that the Earth is 6,000 years old and Noah's Ark had dinosaurs on it. I was fed up with Christians watching garbage disseminated by Kent Hovind and refusing to listen to anyone else. There is nothing wrong with a Christian thinking that young earth creationism is nonsense, and many are in fact deeply offended by the idea that certain parts of the Bible were somehow an attempt by God to pass on scientific information. Notice that I didn't call anyone dumb, but many Christians are taken in by scientific sounding propaganda from people who really should know better and which appears to give credibility to what they already believe. This isn't necessarily their fault, nobody can be an expert on everything and we all have to rely on certain people as our sources for information, but creationist websites and speakers spread endless factoids and misinformation, something those articles and videos attempt to address.

Christians can ignore reality and simply continue to fight a pointless battle that they can never win, or they can realise that science is simply a method for understanding God's creation and, as such, there can be no ultimate conflict between science and sound faith. Far too many Christians don't even understand evolution and end up embarrassing themselves by asking ridiculous questions that could have been answered if they had taken some time to understand the most basic aspects of it from scientists who study it. How many times have you heard the "if humans came from apes why are there still apes?" or "why don't monkeys give birth to humans anymore?" type questions? If people want to look at all the evidence from scientists, and also testimonies and information from scientists who see no conflict between evolutionary science and the doctrine God as creator, so that they are aware of all perspectives and then decide that evolution is still wrong or incompatible with Christianity, then OK, but in my experience far too many don't, they simply reject it out of hand.

http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2008/10/how...pire-faith.html

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1993/PSCF9-93Miller.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20030622051945/...rg/kmiller.html

http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm

Oh, and if people want to talk about prejudice and discrimination I suggest that they go and read about Richard Colling, and find out how he was treated by "those who hold to the creation model."

[Believer1997]

I do have an agenda, to make other Christians understand that it damages Christianity in the eyes of educated people when promoters of pseudoscience go around saying that the Earth is 6,000 years old and Noah's Ark had dinosaurs on it. I was fed up with Christians watching garbage disseminated by Kent Hovind and refusing to listen to anyone else. There is nothing wrong with a Christian thinking that young earth creationism is nonsense, and many are in fact deeply offended by the idea that certain parts of the Bible were somehow an attempt by God to pass on scientific information. Notice that I didn't call anyone dumb, but many Christians are taken in by scientific sounding propaganda from people who really should know better and which appears to give credibility to what they already believe. This isn't necessarily their fault, nobody can be an expert on everything and we all have to rely on certain people as our sources for information, but creationist websites and speakers spread endless factoids and misinformation, something those articles and videos attempt to address.

Christians can ignore reality and simply continue to fight a pointless battle that they can never win, or they can realise that science is simply a method for understanding God's creation and, as such, there can be no ultimate conflict between science and sound faith. Far too many Christians don't even understand evolution and end up embarrassing themselves by asking ridiculous questions that could have been answered if they had taken some time to understand the most basic aspects of it from scientists who study it. How many times have you heard the "if humans came from apes why are there still apes?" or "why don't monkeys give birth to humans anymore?" type questions? If people want to look at all the evidence from scientists, and also testimonies and information from scientists who see no conflict between evolutionary science and the doctrine God as creator, so that they are aware of all perspectives and then decide that evolution is still wrong or incompatible with Christianity, then OK, but in my experience far too many don't, they simply reject it out of hand.

http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2008/10/how...pire-faith.html

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1993/PSCF9-93Miller.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20030622051945/...rg/kmiller.html

http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm

Oh, and if people want to talk about prejudice and discrimination I suggest that they go and read about Richard Colling, and find out how he was treated by "those who hold to the creation model."

Well monkeys have been discussed here ad nauseum. And btw - Are you a Christian - I'm still not clear on that....