Login

Join for Free!
118303 members


Science and Christianity

Debate and discussion of any biological questions not pertaining to a particular topic.

Moderator: BioTeam

Science and Christianity

Postby biologypro » Sat Nov 12, 2011 6:36 am

Science and Christianity does not conflict.
People thought that science and Christianity conflict. Science is based on experiment, calculation and evidence. Christianity is a belief by faith. Scientists tell us that the Universe is started by the Big Bang millions of years ago. But Christians believes in the Bible which states that the whole world was created by God and our earth exists only for thousands of years. Some scientists believe human came from evolution accidentally but Christians believe we are the precious one made by God. Science try to rationalize everything by logic and experiment, but Christianity tells us that it cannot work sometimes.
I think science relates to Christianity. They both reflect the image of God. Scientific discovery helps us to understand God. God is the Creator of all things including the world, animals, human and even science. Science is based on what people can see but there is something greater than what we can see. Science discovers things based on logical observation, measurement, test and experiment. But today scientists have new findings to replace the wrong idea or concept from time to time.
Science is still discovering about the world. One day scientists may be good enough to answer all the questions then they will know the truth that God is the creator of everything. I think that Science and Christianity have no conflicts at all.
biologypro
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 9:44 am

Postby biologypro » Sat Nov 12, 2011 6:40 am

"It is a fraud of the Christian system to call the sciences human invention; it is only the application of them that is human. Every science has for its basis a system of principles as fixed and unalterable as those by which the universe is regulated and governed. Man cannot make principles—he can only discover them."

— Thomas Paine
biologypro
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 9:44 am

Postby DanielSan » Sat Nov 12, 2011 11:10 pm

biologypro wrote:Scientists tell us that the Universe is started by the Big Bang millions of years ago. But Christians believes in the Bible which states that the whole world was created by God and our earth exists only for thousands of years.


Scientists have actual proof that the earth is 4.5 billion years old (radiometric dating). Creationists have a lot of faith and weird explanations, but no proof whatsoever.

biologypro wrote:Some scientists believe human came from evolution accidentally but Christians believe we are the precious one made by God.


Scientists do not "believe" in Evolution- they have solid evidence which supports the theory. And Evolution does not happen accidentially...

biologypro wrote:I think science relates to Christianity. They both reflect the image of God.


Definitely not.
DanielSan
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 7:05 pm


Re:

Postby JackBean » Sun Nov 13, 2011 11:32 am

biologypro wrote:"It is a fraud of the Christian system to call the sciences human invention..."

— Thomas Paine


Yeah, because religion is not human invention :lol: :lol:
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5678
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm

Re: Science and Christianity

Postby JackBean » Sun Nov 13, 2011 11:35 am

biologypro wrote:People thought that science and Christianity conflict. Science is based on experiment, calculation and evidence. Christianity is a belief by faith. Scientists tell us that the Universe is started by the Big Bang millions of years ago. But Christians believes in the Bible which states that the whole world was created by God and our earth exists only for thousands of years. Some scientists believe human came from evolution accidentally but Christians believe we are the precious one made by God.

you sure this is not a conflict? Seems like huge conflict to me.
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5678
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm

Re: Science and Christianity

Postby Gavin » Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:22 pm

Gavin
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:44 am

Re: Science and Christianity

Postby zombiesagan » Mon Nov 14, 2011 11:54 pm

The more and more science discovers, the less there is for God to do. Besides, how do you make the jump from "God created the universe" to "the Christian God (Yahweh) created the universe"? There's a big difference because you not only need to provide evidence that a divine being created the universe (and so far no one has been able to find any evidence of that), but you then need to prove that that divine being is Yahweh and not Allah, Zeus, Cthulu, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's a task no one has successfully accomplished and I don't think anyone ever will. Science wins.
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." -Carl Sagan
User avatar
zombiesagan
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 5:33 pm
Location: Indiana University

Re: Science and Christianity

Postby Makyhg » Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:24 am

couple of days back i heard somewhere about this subject on which we are talking about. But you know has science killed God, or has it simply revealed that He never existed in the first place? In that clip from the movie Contact that we have just seen, did you notice the implicit assumption made by Jody Foster's character, Dr. Arroway? The assumption was that belief in God and belief science are fundamentally incompatible. Dr. Arroway does not argue for this position, she simply assumes it. She takes it as a given. Why? What exactly is it about science that conflicts with belief in God? Do they conflict? Is one more rational than the other?

On some levels, I can identify very much with the character of Dr. Arroway portrayed in this movie. Like her, I tend to have a skeptical bent towards many things. As a physics major, I am, like her, deeply interested in science. Unlike her, I am also a Christian. I have a deep and meaningful faith in Jesus Christ which is the most important thing in my life. Contact is one of my favorite movies, in part because the questions it addresses are close to many of the same questions that I have personally struggled with. Is there a conflict between my faith and science in terms of what each tells me about the world? If not a conflict in the realm of facts, is there, perhaps, a conflict in the methods and attitudes of each toward finding truths about the world? Must I, to be consistent, choose between my love of God and my love of science? Because of these and other questions, and my search for answers to them, I found myself adding an additional major to the physics major I started out with, a major in philosophy and religion.

The issues involved in these questions, I have found, are very deep and trace themselves back to some of our most fundamental beliefs about reality. Brilliant people spend their entire lives studying these questions and often come to very different conclusions. So what is it that makes me, just an undergrad at Truman like yourselves, qualified to stand up here and address this subject? That's a good question. The only answer I can give is that I believe that my own personal involvement with these issues, as well as what I have learned in both of my majors, gives me something of a unique perspective on the whole question of the relationship between science and Christianity. I often find that many of those who see a conflict between science and Christianity (on both sides) have what I call a sort of "tunnel vision" -- they often seem to be blind sided by a single perspective and are unable to see the bigger picture. Other than that, I don't claim to be any more qualified to address these issues than the rest of you. My purpose here, then, is not to give you some definitive resolution to this issue, but, hopefully, to give you some perspective that will help you think more about it.

It is my conviction that if this is a barrier in your spiritual search, it does not need to be, and there are answers.

That being said, I would like to begin addressing this topic by looking at what I believe to be three very common misconceptions about the nature of science and religion that often figure prominently in the whole "science versus religion" debate.

The first misconception is that the scientific method is the only reliable means of obtaining knowledge about the world.

This position is known as "Scientism," and it is one that many in our modern western culture, either consciously or unconsciously, assume to be the case. Often, for example, we use the word "scientific" as a synonym for the word "rational." Something can only be proven, we think, if it can be "demonstrated scientifically." In our culture, science is often regarded as the final judge in all matters of truth. To disagree with science, is to disagree with reason itself. Despite its popularity, however, this position is false, for two basic reasons:

First, it is false because it is self-refuting. The statement "the scientific method is the only reliable means of obtaining knowledge of the world" is itself a statement which can not be known through the scientific method. By its own standards, then, scientism is a position which must be accepted solely on the basis of blind faith, and one which cannot be known to be true.

Second, this position is false because it contradicts many things in our own experience. How do you know that you are in love with someone or that someone genuinely loves you? How do you know that things like racism and the killing of innocent people are wrong? How can you verify scientifically that life is meaningful and worth getting up in the morning for? None of these things are things that can be verified scientifically, but that does not seem to make any of them any less meaningful or less knowable.
Makyhg
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 11:11 am

Postby ChesneMD » Wed Nov 16, 2011 3:14 pm

Science supports or rejects, it doesn't not prove, but does the best it can. Some people try to say "Water boils at blah blah blah", and state it as fast. However, that is incorrect. Water boils at that temperature at a certain elevation, with certain applications present (environmental), etc. It also applies to our atmosphere, perhaps gravity, etc. There are many variables which change it. Therefore, no, water does not boil at that temperature. However, one can assert that it is a fact contingent upon where/how/etc it boils. But is it truly fact, or just a very well supported theory whose results are reproducible time and time again?

As a scientist, I don't believe in fact. I believe only in supporting or rejecting things. If I cannot rule out all of the variables, I cannot say for certain something is fact.

That being said, and getting onto the point... Science and religion do not conflict unless a theory explicitly supports otherwise, such as god making it rain. Of course, that isn't to say a god didn't, because that god may have used their power to cause the rain, which may have occurred naturally. Or, one could hypothesis that every cycle and process on the world is a result of creation due to a god. The Christian god can still work in this situation.

As for creation, interestingly, the timeline of Genesis seems to match the evolution of our universe, even down to our planet, from the information we do have regarding both. As for the evolution of life, it also seems to match in the timeline of biopoesis to where we are now. It's actually quite interesting...

As for everything else, it's muddy, and I am extremely tired, I haven't slept since Sunday... Trying to work on things for school, such as this 100 page CDC epidemiology case study. It's killing me, literally.

I will add more at another time. I am sitting at campus before class and I am falling asleep while typing...
I am a biologist, biological anthropologist, physicist, theoretical physicist, astrophysicist, astrobiologist... I am a scientist. Dammit, Jim, stop pestering Dr. McCoy!
User avatar
ChesneMD
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 1:40 pm
Location: Vanderbilt University and Medical Center

Re:

Postby JackBean » Wed Nov 16, 2011 4:39 pm

ChesneMD wrote:As for creation, interestingly, the timeline of Genesis seems to match the evolution of our universe, even down to our planet, from the information we do have regarding both. As for the evolution of life, it also seems to match in the timeline of biopoesis to where we are now. It's actually quite interesting...

really? And I thought that the Earth is old like 6000 years in accordance to Bible and all the living things were created in only one week. That doesn't seem to correlate to me.
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5678
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm

Re: Re:

Postby ChesneMD » Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:49 pm

JackBean wrote:
ChesneMD wrote:As for creation, interestingly, the timeline of Genesis seems to match the evolution of our universe, even down to our planet, from the information we do have regarding both. As for the evolution of life, it also seems to match in the timeline of biopoesis to where we are now. It's actually quite interesting...

really? And I thought that the Earth is old like 6000 years in accordance to Bible and all the living things were created in only one week. That doesn't seem to correlate to me.



You would be entirely incorrect, then. The bible does not state either directly nor indirectly, not so much as a hint, toward the age of the universe, let alone the earth. The only time it does state is 6 days, in relation to the creation of everything. However, as I am sure you are aware, there are many debates as to what that means. I am under the assumption that it means something other than a literal day. Also, if it was a literal 6 days, that still doesn't mean it couldn't all be fashioned faster than normal by a god. Instead of taking a million or billion years, he could've made it happen faster.

But regarding what actually happens sans time is what I was referring to, the steps therein contained.

Yet do bear in mind I am a scientist, and I am not a Christian.
I am a biologist, biological anthropologist, physicist, theoretical physicist, astrophysicist, astrobiologist... I am a scientist. Dammit, Jim, stop pestering Dr. McCoy!
User avatar
ChesneMD
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 1:40 pm
Location: Vanderbilt University and Medical Center

Postby JackBean » Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:21 pm

Firstly, I think the 6000years come from Christian "scientist", who have calculated the age from Bible somehow. Secondly, that's the problem with all the divine "creatures", because you can always say they made the day longer or they created everything but since that time they didn't bother to show up and proof their existence etc.
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5678
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests