Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Bible records, "The fool has said in his heart 'there is no God.'"
But equally biblical followers have been fools about the role of science---which owes its modern existence to----CHRISTIANITY.
Quote:
The first problem with claiming that science and faith are at war is that, as many historians now argue, the culture of Christianity was directly responsible for the development of science in the West. Christians believe in a rational God who created the universe according to rational principles, a belief that is necessary to science. Rather than being antagonistic to science, the Christian faith allowed it to flourish. The greatest universities of the first 17 centuries of the last 2 millennia were virtually all developed by the Church to be places where faith could seek understanding, and most of the greatest scientific minds up until the Enlightenment were devout Christians.
In his book, Radical Monotheism and Western Culture, Christian ethicist H. Richard Niehbur writes concerning faith and science:
Quote:
Niebuhr proposes three reasons for our near complete trust in science:
1. Scientists have commended themselves by the signs they have wrought “We believe what physicists and engineers tell us about electricity, sound-waves, and light-waves because we have heard radio and seen television…Modern, so-called scientific, man is not too different from his forebears in this respect; unless he sees signs and wonders he is reluctant to believe.”
2. Scientists make predictions that come true “Once true and false prophets were distinguished from each other on the basis of the accuracy of their predictions; now science and pseudo-science are discriminated on similar grounds. We believe the astronomers because we have seen eclipses at the predicted hour…”
3. Scientists have been faithful to us “They have been loyal to the human community and its members in the administration of the particular domain for which they have responsibility. That domain, we believe, is the understanding of the natural world in which we live and of which we are a part… it has not deceived us, who can easily be deceived about many things that lie beyond our knowledge.” “We have come to have our great confidence in science,” he continues, “Because we encounter it not as an impersonal activity but as a community of men with a tradition and a discipline of faithfulness.”
I believe this trust is waning as religion and science are so often pitted against each other rather than enjoying a mutually enlightening relationship. As a Christian, I find it unfortunate that it is necessary to say that I am not anti-science. I get the distinct impression that some Christians think an anti-science position is not only truthful but also required.
Put more succinctly, talk about God and science simply use two different languages.
Quote:
(S)cience and religion have different languages. They use them differently and for different ends. The cultural divide is deep. This is not to say that science and religion have nothing to say to one another; after all, we live in one world. But careful translation is required. And even then, there are no perfect translations.
But there are plenty of horrible ones. During my time as the chair of a college physics department I directed a search for a new faculty member. And, to my surprise, some foreign applicants simply ran their CV's through online translators before sending them to me. The result was comical. A translation had occurred, but one could not discern -- at all -- the original intent of perhaps three out of four sentences. The applications were nearly pure nonsense.
Often, when I read or hear scientists on religion or religious believers on science, I get the sense that a similar kind of flatfooted one-to-one translation is lurking somewhere behind the words. Truly bilingual people are hard to find, perhaps because the two languages, and the perspectives that inspire them, are so different.
Science's categories are products of its frontal vision. They are (relatively) well-defined. And science progresses by narrowing its focus, by dividing the world into parts. It puts those parts back together, to be sure, but it never takes its eye off distinctions.
On the other hand, theology's categories are (relatively) poorly-defined, its vision anything but frontal. We cannot address God directly, but always obliquely, always indirectly. The language of theology reflects its object's shifting presence in our lives: glancing, peripheral. That's just the nature of the thing: Once you nail it down, it's dead. Or, as a friend of mine once put it, "Any box you put God in becomes a casket."
We simply cannot speak from the two different perspectives in the same language. When Eusebius attempts to speak of God using the language of scientists he comes off as a deaf/mute using sign language to communicate to blind people.
When atheists and agnostics try to belittle Christian "faith" viewpoints to deeply spiritual people, it sounds like Chinese Mandarin being spoken to Portuguese people.
Both sides have much to learn from one another. And the beginning of understanding is to accept that one knows nothing about the other's viewpoint.
A pointless exercise. Where on earth did you get the bizarre idea that it would take 28 million years for a beetle to evolve into a new species of beetle?
Simple math. Try it yourself, if you like. In 28 million years you have 2 beetle species; 28 million years later you have 4 beetle species; 28 million years later, you'll have 8 species, and so on. Eventually, you get to 350,000 species, which would be what we have today.
The alternative theory is that all species of beetles evolved since Noah's flood some 4,000 years ago. The big problem with this young theory is that there would be 3 new beetles evolving every day.
Simple math. Try it yourself, if you like. In 28 million years you have 2 beetle species; 28 million years later you have 4 beetle species; 28 million years later, you'll have 8 species, and so on. Eventually, you get to 350,000 species, which would be what we have today.
The alternative theory is that all species of beetles evolved since Noah's flood some 4,000 years ago. The big problem with this young theory is that there would be 3 new beetles evolving every day.
God didn't tell Noah to take only two beetles on the ark.
The Bible records, "The fool has said in his heart 'there is no God.'"
When Eusebius attempts to speak of God using the language of scientists he comes off as a deaf/mute using sign language to communicate to blind people.
When atheists and agnostics try to belittle Christian "faith" viewpoints to deeply spiritual people, it sounds like Chinese Mandarin being spoken to Portuguese people.
Both sides have much to learn from one another. And the beginning of understanding is to accept that one knows nothing about the other's viewpoint.
I don't know if that was meant to be a back handed way of giving me a slap in the face or a compliment.
"Take dogs, for example—would Noah have taken two Alsatians, two cocker spaniels, two collies, two red setters, etc.? No, he would have needed just one pair of dogs, like the wolf kind, with much genetic variation, somewhat like mongrels today. We know that the different breeds of dogs have been produced from a wolf-like dog, and this only took a few thousand years. That is not evolution; that’s just variation within the original created kind." from: How could Noah get all the animals on the Ark? - creation.com
I don't know if that was meant to be a back handed way of giving me a slap in the face or a compliment.
"Take dogs, for example—would Noah have taken two Alsatians, two cocker spaniels, two collies, two red setters, etc.? No, he would have needed just one pair of dogs, like the wolf kind, with much genetic variation, somewhat like mongrels today. We know that the different breeds of dogs have been produced from a wolf-like dog, and this only took a few thousand years. That is not evolution; that’s just variation within the original created kind." from: How could Noah get all the animals on the Ark? - creation.com
So Noah was blessed not only with super ark-building skills, he was also well-versed in breeding and genetics.
I don't know if that was meant to be a back handed way of giving me a slap in the face or a compliment.
"Take dogs, for example—would Noah have taken two Alsatians, two cocker spaniels, two collies, two red setters, etc.? No, he would have needed just one pair of dogs, like the wolf kind, with much genetic variation, somewhat like mongrels today. We know that the different breeds of dogs have been produced from a wolf-like dog, and this only took a few thousand years. That is not evolution; that’s just variation within the original created kind." from: How could Noah get all the animals on the Ark? - creation.com
It means when you try to talk to atheists using THEIR language, you come off as unintelligible. When atheists try to belittle Christianity because science is their idol, it comes off as unintelligible to men and women of faith.
Neither side has the ability to find common language making this thread one of the most illiterate in terms of transferring knowledge between two separate groups of people.
So Noah was blessed not only with super ark-building skills, he was also well-versed in breeding and genetics.
Kewl.
We'll just say God magically put all of that knowledge into his head before the flood. The Bible doesn't say that, of course, but it's fun being on this side of the debate because I can just make stuff up.
Whee! No boundaries, no rules, I don't have to conform to reality, and I don't need to provide any evidence, either.
It is true because I say it's true. *bangs gavel* Court adjourned.
We'll just say God magically put all of that knowledge into his head before the flood. The Bible doesn't say that, of course, but it's fun being on this side of the debate because I can just make stuff up.
Whee! No boundaries, no rules, I don't have to conform to reality, and I don't need to provide any evidence, either.
It is true because I say it's true. *bangs gavel* Court adjourned.
Well why should you start now to conform to reality or provide evidence?
Originally Posted by TroutDude
So Noah was blessed not only with super ark-building skills, he was also well-versed in breeding and genetics.
Kewl.
I'm not sure why you would write the above other than to make drive-by snide remarks as if they lend any weight whatsoever to the debate at hand.
But as to the ark building, it does prove one thing: When God is involved, humans can do what seems impossible to other humans.
Why would Noah need to be versed in genetics? He obviously knew what a clean and unclean animal was. The instructions to him as to what animals to take were very simple. God didn't require him to take 4 years of graduate school to be able to understand what clean and unclean meant.
Simple math. Try it yourself, if you like. In 28 million years you have 2 beetle species; 28 million years later you have 4 beetle species; 28 million years later, you'll have 8 species, and so on. Eventually, you get to 350,000 species, which would be what we have today.
The alternative theory is that all species of beetles evolved since Noah's flood some 4,000 years ago. The big problem with this young theory is that there would be 3 new beetles evolving every day.
That assumes that evolution proceeds in a linear fashion. It doesn't.
"Now a team of scientists has shown that large numbers of modern-day beetle lineages evolved very soon after the first beetles originated, and have persisted ever since. Many modern-day lineages first appeared during the Jurassic period, when the major groups of dinosaurs appeared too."
Neither of your alternatives fits the facts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
