why this is important

[Enoch2021]

The naturalists have some very good evidence for their ideas. I believe God is the creator, but I would advise against dismissing their claims as fairy tales or what not.

 

"The naturalists have some very good evidence for their ideas."

 

The first and ONLY question I would have for the "Naturalists" is...... where did their "Ideas" come from since "ideas" are Immaterial?? 

 

 

"I would advise against dismissing their claims as fairy tales or what not."

 

How do they even know what TRUTH is?  And, TRUTH shouldn't exist..... it's immaterial.  Thirdly,  If Information >>>>>Knowledge >>>>> TRUTH are nothing more than Chemical Reactions, What's TRUTH? ....

 

Shake up a can of Pepsi and Sprite.......Which ones True/False?? 

 

They've weaved themselves into a Paradox!!

 

That's what they call in the Industry as..... CHECKMATE!!

 

 

Thanks

[alphaparticle]

 

I get the sense from some people , who are not scientifically inclined, they think that while science is fine and all what's the point in dragging it into faith matters? Isn't the gospel simple? Why does it matter if evolution is true or not, why worry about it? Why does it matter if the universe is 14.5 billion years old or 10k yrs old? What does that affect anyway?

 

There's a point there sure. But, my opponents (the YEC who debate in this subforum) have a point also, and it's this, as I understand it. Science informs what we think is *really* true about the world. If there is a lot of scientific evidence that being exposed to plutonium causes cancer, I will avoid it. If there is a lot of scientific evidence that t he earth is round, that it goes around the sun, and that the sun is a star in the Milky Way, I will see the world that way now. That is, science is such a powerful tool for informing us about  how the physical world works, it can inform the worldviews we have powerfully. Ignoring that is perhaps naive. More than that, for people who are more scientifically inclined this effect is more powerful.

 

This, ultimately, is about what we think is true about the world, and perhaps what the default 'truth' is. When I want to know what is 'really real' where do I turn? If I had to put my future income on the line? my family? At the risk of exposing myself, I admit, I have struggled with this sort of thing. I instinctually believe 'the science'. I am challenged to have faith and see the 'greater' reality, the real reality, as being in God. For many of us, there is a tension there. I doesn't have to be that way, but it is. I have personally been convicted of having less faith while engaging in research. There are things happening that way I don't even really understand yet, which is for me a reason I engage in these discussions at all.

 

This isn't just about being curious about the world, or enjoying science as some hobby or career choice. At issue is a fundamental approach to the world. And insofar as I am correct in understanding the YEC crowd, I think they are correct about that.

 

Hey Alpha,

 

Don't know if I am the official Spokesperson for YEC (yet LOL), but I'll give it a shot.

 

"they think that while science is fine and all what's the point in dragging it into faith matters?"

 

Ironically, the "Founding Fathers" of science were Creationists attempting to explain/discover the Awesomeness of GOD'S Creation.  Don't know when science separated from it's original tenet;  Science = Knowledge..... to...... Science = Naturalistic Explanations of Knowledge only.

 

The Irony turns into a Full Blown Contradiction, How?  Well "Naturalistic" explanations are Material....and Knowledge is SUPERNATURAL.  You can't put Information >>>>> Knowledge >>>>>> or TRUTH in a Jar and Paint it RED. .......

 

It's tantamount to trying to discover what we breathe...... but, a priori excluding AIR from the choices....and breathing it all while attempting to rule it out !!!!! 

 

"Why does it matter if the universe is 14.5 billion years old or 10k yrs old?"

 

Ask OEC'ers.

 

"Isn't the gospel simple?"

 

Well it's all ONE BOOK.  The Gospel isn't separate from the OLD Testament.

 

"Why does it matter if evolution is true or not, why worry about it?"

 

Because it's a Clear assault, contradiction, and undermines the WORD of GOD.  Why does it matter?  Did Jesus just let the Pharisees "go" or exclaim; "why does it matter" when they undermined GOD's Word?

 

"Science informs what we think is *really* true about the world."

 

Personally, I Love "Science"....what I take issue with is a priori fairytales masqueraded under the guise of "science", (to impart some conjured pseudo-legitimacy through equivocation), that are merely Extrapolations from Assumptions.

 

 

"That is, science is such a powerful tool for informing us about  how the physical world works, it can inform the worldviews we have powerfully."

 

You betcha, and they better follow Protocol or I will EXPOSE them..... Systematically.  My assigned Goal In Life!!!

 

 

"When I want to know what is 'really real' where do I turn? If I had to put my future income on the line? my family? At the risk of exposing myself, I admit, I have struggled with this sort of thing. I instinctually believe 'the science'."

 

This is where we differ (well one place ): Science is man's word....(Romans 3:10-13) "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:  {11} There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.  {12} They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.  {13} Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:"

 

or

 

GOD's WORD. 

 

I don't know about you but for me it's a MegaTsunamic Landslide in a Planck Time!!!

 

This is the Hierarchy for me personally:

 

Assumptions/Conjecture/Stories >>> "Scientific Evidence" (via The Scientific Method) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scripture (not to scale or Scripture would be past the "Crab Nebula" to the Right)

 

and, I never look @ any issue in a Vacuum.  1st is the WORD then (if applicable) I look @ what Science has to say.  I never look @ science and then attempt to reconcile the WORD through it.

 

 

"I have personally been convicted of having less faith while engaging in research."

 

And as a result of this personal conundrum.......  I see BIG THINGS for You ALPHA!!!!! 

 

thanks for the feedback.

 

I may have more to say later, I'm short on time, but I laughed here... Planck time eh? lol

 

"I don't know about you but for me it's a MegaTsunamic Landslide in a Planck Time!!!"

[gray wolf]

Science isn't a quest for truth, just facts IMHO Philosophy and Faith seek truth. Science informs this endeavor. I did not get a degree in science to prove or disprove God. It never occurred to me to do that. Instead I studied because of awe and wonder. Sure I believed in God, but I think all these debates are tiresome. Both parties know they are right and them theatrics!

[SandyU]

It's not science that has a problem with God. Plenty of scientist believe in God. Humanism has promoted their religion by attacking creationism.It is a fallacy that creationism is unscientific.

[Tristen]

 

It is true that our "world view" reflects how we interpret everything, even in science.

 

The weakness of science, as I see it, is forcing everyone to assume a Naturalistic world view - the view that "nature" is all that there is, no spiritual realm influencing us, no "supreme being" of any sort who is in command of it all.

 

When speaking of the things of the past, I take on the habit of saying such things as, "It is believed that," or "It has been concluded that," rather than, "It is." After all, is that nor more correct?

Yeah. I think the issue is, you are assuming naturalism, if even for a moment, to do it. Then, you see how well it all works out, how powerful the predictions are, how well we can control the world thinking like that. For me, at any rate, it's hard not to exist in tension between this implicit 'success' of science, associate that with naturalism, vs the more 'unpredictable' nature of spiritual encounters with God.

 

 

 

"Why does it matter if evolution is true or not, why worry about it? Why does it matter if the universe is 14.5 billion years old or 10k yrs old? What does that affect anyway?"

 

 

As a Christian, I believe that the Bible is God’s highest authoritative communication to humanity. The primary purpose of the Bible is to reveal God to humanity, as well as His plan for our salvation. The Bible provides the fundamental premise of all Christian doctrine, ethics and philosophy including the nature of God and reason that salvation is necessary.

 

Opponents of Christianity have long understood that the most effective attacks against the Christian faith are those which undermine the reliability and authority of the Bible. Some non-Christian faiths have constructed their own scriptures through which they judge the Bible (e.g. Islam), others formulate new “scriptures”; permitting them to reinterpret the Bible (e.g. the Book of Mormon, Gnostic gospels etc.). Others simply change parts of scripture to suit what they believe (e.g. the Jehovah’s Witness Bible). There have been many recorded historical attempts to change the Bible; especially the New Testament (e.g. the Alexandrian manuscripts, Constantine’s attempt to standardise the Bible etc.).

 

Non-religious faiths (i.e. atheism, agnosticism) tend to prefer attacking the reliability of the Bible in other ways. For example, vast lists of alleged Bible contradictions have been formulated in an attempt to undermine the Bible; based on the implied accusation of logical inconsistency. In some cases they simply utilize the logical fallacy known as Appeal to Ridicule by mocking the supernatural claims made in the Bible (e.g. talking animals, “magical sky Daddy” & “zombie Jesus” etc.) – thinking themselves to be ever so clever. But by far the most aggressive and successful attacks against the authority of scripture are those claiming the Bible to be scientifically untenable.

 

Science (as we understand it) requires the assumption of a rationally ordered universe. That is, in order for us to be able to attribute scientific confidence to a claim, we have to assume that the laws which govern our universe are constant through time and space, and that identical experiments will thus yield identical results.

 

Scientific advancement stalled in several ancient cultures because they lacked any justification for assuming a rationally ordered universe. However, science prospered under the Christian paradigm which justifies this fundamental assumption (by invoking a rational Creator). This is why Christianity has been the foremost sponsor of scientific advancement for the best part of the last 2000 years; and why the founding scientists of almost all scientific disciplines were explicitly Christian; and why the oldest science universities (e.g. Oxford) were built by the church. Science was originally conducted to glorify the Biblical God through investigation of His creation.

 

However, roughly 300 years ago, a new paradigm was suggested for science which we now call naturalism. Naturalism is a paradigm whereby only natural explanations can be considered to qualify as truth – and therefore is a faith-based paradigm that unjustifiably prohibits the possibility of any supernatural interaction with the physical universe). This new paradigm has been so thoroughly adopted by the broader scientific community that it has become the only type of science that most people are exposed to. This creates the false impression that naturalistic science is logically superior to science performed from other faith-based perspectives.

 

This secular indoctrination of the naturalistic perspective makes it easy for its proponents to make unjustified, Innuendo-based claims that with their position; “you see how well it all works out, how powerful the predictions are, how well we can control the world thinking like that”; and to simply equate their own position as “science” with its “implicit 'success'” – with the obvious implication that opposing positions are not “science”. They furthermore demonstrate no knowledge of the predictive power and consistency of models formulated around alternative faith perspectives; and again appealing to logical fallacy (Innuendo and Strawman Misrepresentations) proceeding to falsely characterise opposing views as unscientific (i.e. “the more 'unpredictable' nature of spiritual encounters with God”) in contrast against their own preferred, allegedly “scientific” perspective.

 

The defence of Biblical authority is of paramount importance to the success of Christian conversion and life. I have encountered many who outright reject Christianity because they think is it scientifically unsustainable based on what is taught in the Bible. And others who fall away from Christianity because they cannot reconcile their faith in naturalistic science with their faith in the reliability of the Bible. Yet as someone who is formally educated in science, I have never encountered an argument or evidence that would warrant a wholesale rejection of the Biblical model of reality (including the creation account). I have searched, and I have found no objective scientific reason that would necessarily, logically bind anyone to the naturalistic models. In other words, as much as our culture and the secular scientific community would like you to believe that theirs is the only rational argument, their expressed levels of confidence in their own position is neither scientifically, or logically, justified. And there is therefore no legitimate reason for a Christian to believe they are obligated to distrust the account of history presented in the Bible. Any such adherence to secular models is based on faith in the naturalistic paradigm, not any objective consideration of the science itself.

Edited February 3, 2014 by Tristen

[gray wolf]

It's not science that has a problem with God. Plenty of scientist believe in God. Humanism has promoted their religion by attacking creationism.It is a fallacy that creationism is unscientific.

I But to be brutally honest, many Creationist organizations and individuals are more interested in pushing doctrine rather than pursue science.

[ARGOSY]

 

 When I want to know what is 'really real' where do I turn? If I had to put my future income on the line? my family? At the risk of exposing myself, I admit, I have struggled with this sort of thing. I instinctually believe 'the science'. I am challenged to have faith and see the 'greater' reality, the real reality, as being in God. For many of us, there is a tension there. I doesn't have to be that way, but it is. I have personally been convicted of having less faith while engaging in research. There are things happening that way I don't even really understand yet, which is for me a reason I engage in these discussions at all.

 

This isn't just about being curious about the world, or enjoying science as some hobby or career choice. At issue is a fundamental approach to the world. And insofar as I am correct in understanding the YEC crowd, I think they are correct about that.

 

I don't think its as important as you think. Just keep your faith strong, you believe Jesus did walk the earth, and did die for your sins. This is faith in the word, saving faith. When your life/career is on the line regarding this I'm sure you will choose truth rather than compromise.

 

Regarding the apparent conflict between the bible and science, I believe let your heart rule. If your heart goes with science then so be it, you still believe in the core gospel message and you are keeping your faith secure so these are just peripheral issues. BUT... if your heart starts to doubt the mainstream scientific thought, then if that new thinking becomes definite truth to you, then you should not compromise the truth in favor of your career.  And often the heart has a greater take on truth than our stubborn and finite minds which are full of bias and preconceived ideas.  

 

So in essence let the science speak to your heart. When you read a creationist comment, or an evolutionist comment, let your unbiased sense of what is real truth speak to you.

 

(the Holy Spirit communicates in this way, giving you a deep sense of truth when you read something, confirming it or denying it.)

Edited February 3, 2014 by ARGOSY

[Enoch2021]

Science isn't a quest for truth, just facts IMHO Philosophy and Faith seek truth. Science informs this endeavor. I did not get a degree in science to prove or disprove God. It never occurred to me to do that. Instead I studied because of awe and wonder. Sure I believed in God, but I think all these debates are tiresome. Both parties know they are right and them theatrics!

 

'Science isn't a quest for truth, just facts"

 

Aren't Facts, TRUTH?

 

 

Sure I believed in God, but I think all these debates are tiresome. Both parties know they are right and them theatrics!

 

Which debates are you referring too?  Why are they Tiresome?  Who are the 2 Parties?

 

 

"I did not get a degree in science to prove or disprove God. It never occurred to me"

 

I didn't either; but there appears to be Roosters in the Hen House......

 

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

Michael Ruse; How evolution became a religion; creationists correct? National Post May 13 2000

 

"Then, sometimes from the same person, you have evolution as secular religion, generally working from an explicitly materialist background and solving all of the world's major problems, from racism to education to conservation. Consider Edward O. Wilson, rightfully regarded as one of the most outstanding professional evolutionary biologists of our time, and the author of major works of straight science. In his On Human Nature, he calmly assures us that evolution is a myth that is now ready to take over Christianity."

Michael Ruse: Science, March 7 2003 p. 1524

 

John Polkinghorne PhD, Professor of Mathematical Physics Cambridge

'People who tell you that 'Science tells you everything you need to know about the world' or 'Science tells you that religion is all wrong' or 'Science tells you there is no God', those people aren't telling you scientific things. They are saying metaphysical things and they have to defend their positions from metaphysical reasons.'

John Polkinghorne PhD; Expelled, April 18 2008

 

William Provine PhD Professor of Biology Cornell

'Creationists will have to speak louder. I continue to support those who would like to have their voices heard in biology classes. I encourage the effort to limit the teaching of evolutionary biology until such time as evolutionists encourage a more inclusive participation of students. The very idea of the American Civil Liberties Union conspiring with evolutionary biologists to limit the free speech of the majority of the high school students in this country is grotesque.'

William Provine PhD; Darwinism, Design and Public Education 2003, p. 511

 

 

'Scientists committed to philosophical naturalism do not claim to have found the precise answer to every problem, but they characteristically insist that they have the important problems sufficiently well in hand that they can narrow the field of possibilities to a set of naturalistic alternatives. Absent that insistence, they would have to concede that their commitment to naturalism is based upon faith rather than proof. Such a concession could be exploited by promoters of rival sources of knowledge, such as philosophy and religion, who would be quick to point out that faith in naturalism is no more "scientific" (i.e. empirically based) than any other kind of faith.'

Phillip Johnson Professor of Law; Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism, October 1990

 

 

'The public should view with profound alarm this unnecessary and misguided reintroduction of speculative historical, philosophical and religious ideas into the realms of experimental science.

Through the writings of neo-Darwinian biologists, they have subsumed many of the biological experimental discoveries of the 20th century. This is so despite the fact that those discoveries were neither predicted nor heuristically guided by evolutionary theory.'

Philip Skell PhD; The Dangers of overselling Evolution, February 23 2009

[Tristen]

 

Science isn't a quest for truth, just facts IMHO Philosophy and Faith seek truth. Science informs this endeavor. I did not get a degree in science to prove or disprove God. It never occurred to me to do that. Instead I studied because of awe and wonder. Sure I believed in God, but I think all these debates are tiresome. Both parties know they are right and them theatrics!

 

'Science isn't a quest for truth, just facts"

 

Aren't Facts, TRUTH?

 

 

Sure I believed in God, but I think all these debates are tiresome. Both parties know they are right and them theatrics!

 

Which debates are you referring too?  Why are they Tiresome?  Who are the 2 Parties?

 

 

"I did not get a degree in science to prove or disprove God. It never occurred to me"

 

I didn't either; but there appears to be Roosters in the Hen House......

 

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

Michael Ruse; How evolution became a religion; creationists correct? National Post May 13 2000

 

"Then, sometimes from the same person, you have evolution as secular religion, generally working from an explicitly materialist background and solving all of the world's major problems, from racism to education to conservation. Consider Edward O. Wilson, rightfully regarded as one of the most outstanding professional evolutionary biologists of our time, and the author of major works of straight science. In his On Human Nature, he calmly assures us that evolution is a myth that is now ready to take over Christianity."

Michael Ruse: Science, March 7 2003 p. 1524

 

John Polkinghorne PhD, Professor of Mathematical Physics Cambridge

'People who tell you that 'Science tells you everything you need to know about the world' or 'Science tells you that religion is all wrong' or 'Science tells you there is no God', those people aren't telling you scientific things. They are saying metaphysical things and they have to defend their positions from metaphysical reasons.'

John Polkinghorne PhD; Expelled, April 18 2008

 

William Provine PhD Professor of Biology Cornell

'Creationists will have to speak louder. I continue to support those who would like to have their voices heard in biology classes. I encourage the effort to limit the teaching of evolutionary biology until such time as evolutionists encourage a more inclusive participation of students. The very idea of the American Civil Liberties Union conspiring with evolutionary biologists to limit the free speech of the majority of the high school students in this country is grotesque.'

William Provine PhD; Darwinism, Design and Public Education 2003, p. 511

 

 

'Scientists committed to philosophical naturalism do not claim to have found the precise answer to every problem, but they characteristically insist that they have the important problems sufficiently well in hand that they can narrow the field of possibilities to a set of naturalistic alternatives. Absent that insistence, they would have to concede that their commitment to naturalism is based upon faith rather than proof. Such a concession could be exploited by promoters of rival sources of knowledge, such as philosophy and religion, who would be quick to point out that faith in naturalism is no more "scientific" (i.e. empirically based) than any other kind of faith.'

Phillip Johnson Professor of Law; Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism, October 1990

 

 

'The public should view with profound alarm this unnecessary and misguided reintroduction of speculative historical, philosophical and religious ideas into the realms of experimental science.

Through the writings of neo-Darwinian biologists, they have subsumed many of the biological experimental discoveries of the 20th century. This is so despite the fact that those discoveries were neither predicted nor heuristically guided by evolutionary theory.'

Philip Skell PhD; The Dangers of overselling Evolution, February 23 2009

 

 

 

Hey Enoch, You said “Aren't Facts, TRUTH?”

 

Technically, the answer is no. Facts are observations; i.e. articles or data measurements. If they exist, they are rationally indisputable – but only given the unverifiable faith premise that observations can be trusted (which we generally all adhere to).

 

Truth is a claim about ultimate reality. It is an absolutist concept which places it beyond the scope of science. That is, science only attributes confidence and probability to claims about truth – but can never itself legitimately proclaim a truth (because we don’t know what we don’t know). There is always the possibility that some new discovery could undermine everything we previously thought we knew about an issue.

 

For the longest time, society has been under the misapprehension that science does deal in right/wrong, true/false etc. As such, scientists enjoyed the position of modern day prophets. A news article introduced with “scientists believe ...” had become the modern day equivalent of “thus saith the Lord”. And the scientific community did nothing to correct this false impression; addicted to their ideas being considered ‘gospel’ in broader society. In my opinion, this is why the scientific community became so offended by members of society having the gall to question them over climate change. I mean, how dare these unqualified peasants question our authoritaa – don’t they know that we are scientists – some even climate scientists? (But in reality, the scientific method has always permitted the scrutiny of any scientific claim.)

 

It is unfortunate that the scientific term “fact” is commonly misunderstood and misused to exaggerate scientific confidence in a particular, preferred truth claim (e.g. the claim that “Common Ancestry/evolution is a fact”).

[Guest shiloh357]

 

It's not science that has a problem with God. Plenty of scientist believe in God. Humanism has promoted their religion by attacking creationism.It is a fallacy that creationism is unscientific.

I But to be brutally honest, many Creationist organizations and individuals are more interested in pushing doctrine rather than pursue science.

 

That's not really true.  They see science as a means of confirming what the Bible says the world and God. Science is, to creationists a means of understanding the scope of God's creaetion.   They are painted as Bible thumpers by their opponents, but the truth is that the world we live in cannot be divorced from the the God who made it.

 

Creation is a doctrine. It is the beginning of all Christian doctrine.  Everything about the Christian faith has its origins in very first chapter of the Bible.   Science should be about uncovering truth and truth should be the filter through which evidence is interpreted.

 

What we have today is evidence being interpreted through the filters of humanism and naturalism.  Science has been hijacked by the humanists and naturalists who want science defined on their terms alone.