What good is modern science?

[Anonymous]

This may seem like a strange concept, but ive been contemplating this for sometime now. I've come to the conclusion that modern science (not nature) contain's probably not a sliver of truth. Before i get attacked on this, I believe God didn't reveal complex scientific laws in the bible because 1.) it would remove the idea of faith and 2.) God create's the laws of nature, as such that they aren't eternal or anything mankind should be overly concerned with.

Scientists observe nature and then take those observations, formulate a theory then make the theory appear as fact. Much of what they find in nature they alter in some way or shape so that it fits with a preconceived notion. Then when a piece of evidence which flat out contradicts their theory comes about, scientists like to disregard it. Examples of this would be Darwinian Evolution and Big Bang (some scientist's will alter facts to make this universe creating explosion sound like it happened by chance).

You may argue science has cured a lot of life threatening diseases over the years, but that's not quite what it's cracked up to be. Scientists have cured what little they can mostly in the name of profit. If i'm to get a life threatening disease, then perhaps its my time to depart from this earthly world and rise again to face the Lord. Science also i may add has probably pushed more people away from christianity then anything else I can think of. Science should be about bringing people closer to God, not pushing them away.

Basically when it comes to science, i believe we should be doing something along the lines of Natural Theology proposed by Paley as that actually has a our worldy purpose behind it in the glorification of God. Any thoughts or comments on this.
P.S.
I'm still for the field of medicine, but i just think going through a billion surgeries just to keep yourself barely alive is like telling God you don't want to go to him.

[Mastermind]

Grrr. I like my video games and TV. And heat. And not having to work all day in a field just so that I can have enough food to survive. And not having to walk everywhere. And... You get the point. If science bothers you so much, you could become an Amnish.

[Anonymous]

I would have to say I beleive what vvart says about science. I too have been thinking this same thing and it is TRUE that science is pushing away more Christians into agnostics or even atheists. That is the science of the "Big Bang" and "Evolution" and other things scientists try to turn theory into fact. It just doesn't work. I beleive as more science progresses, the more God will be revealed. Some science is good and some bad. Evolution does exist to some extent, which I beleive is macro evolutuon. Only some smaller lifeforms have evolved but not big scale lifeforms such as humans. Everything scientists do usually contradict new findings. That's just my thought on this.

[Anonymous]

mastermind what you mentioned isn't really modern, i was thinking more along the lines of 1950-2005. Science also doesn't bother me as I can weed out the truth from the lies, but a lot of people don't take the time to do that. Basically 50 years ago, people who questioned the Bible were a minority, now i fear we are a minority.

Maybe i should be blaming the media, i've never seen a single program on TV talking about ID, but its not to hard to find something on evolution.

[Mastermind]

Modern science's purpose is to improve our lives first and foremost. If you have beef with a couple of theories, just say so. But I fail to see how somebody inventing an optical mouse turns people away from God.

[Anonymous]

fine fine, but i have beef with the scientists who spread their stupid theories around. Science done right should only improve our lives, but right now it appears like its science vs. Bible. Everytime i argue with someone about the God, they bring up some scientific theory (not just evolution)!

[Deborah]

I wouldn't worry about Theories, there are laws of science that support
the possibility of god and that is really all we need, because we have faith. If they want to overlook the proven laws of science and bring up unproven theories, then they are reaching.

[Kurieuo]

I would have to say I beleive what vvart says about science. I too have been thinking this same thing and it is TRUE that science is pushing away more Christians into agnostics or even atheists.

I disagree. I think fundamentalist Young Earth Creationists (though not all YECs), or Kantian fideists, also cause conflict and push people away, adding to the stigma that somehow Science (and rationality) is diametrically opposed to religion or Christianity. Yet, we must also be careful I think not to confuse cause with effect, for how do we know people don't ultimately turn away because of their hearts (which is think has more Scriptural support)? I'd also question the validity of Science turning away Christians, as I see it has also aided in producing Christians. Thankfully I think the stigmas of the incompatibility of Science and Christianity are on the way out. I say thankfully because I think Scripture strongly supports Science:

• Psalm 19:1-4—
  1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
  the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
  2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
  night after night they display knowledge.
  3 There is no speech or language
  where their voice is not heard.
  4 Their voice goes out into all the earth,
  their words to the ends of the world.

I also think Paul captures these words well, while also highlighting the problems Vvart perceives in scientists committed to methodological naturalism (which he appears to label "Science"):

• Romans 1:20-22—
  For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
  For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools...

Question: How do we explore and understand our environment around us? If Science is unprofitable, then David's words that we can draw knowledge from the world around us is wrong, and Paul's words that God is clearly seen in what has been made is also wrong. You must be careful not the throw the baby out with the water, as Science is the way we observe the world around us, the way we draw conclusions on how things in the world work, and then we test those conclusions to see whether we got it right. At the same time we have many currently interpreting Science, who are commited to the philosophy of methodological naturalism, whose hearts have been darkened as Paul describes. Yet, this does not make Science anti-Christian, anymore than Jehovah's Witnesses interpretation of Scripture makes Scripture anti-Christian (orthodox).

So the real issue is that we must be careful to realise one's bias can influence conclusions drawn from Science, not just this, but also one's bias can influence interpretations of Scripture. If you throw out Science on the grounds you think we can't draw truths from it due to bias, then I see it as a short step to throwing out Scripture because we can't draw truths from it either due to bias! It is better to embrace that truth can be found within each, but that we must be aware of our biasses.

Kurieuo.

[Anonymous]

your right, however what really bothers me is not science which involves observing what God created but how one observes not only with bias, but imposes his biased perspective on others (evolution is taught in schools).

Also when i interpret scripture even if it is with bias, I'm quick to change my mind when someone show's me my flaws. That however has not happened with the scientific community which for the most part accepts evolution. "scientists" when under attack expect people to change their views instead of the other way around. For a community of people who claim to be rational, they sure let their personal believes get in the way.

One other thing that i find disturbing is that how come with so many christians worldwide, that we are not fighting the spread of a theory that seeks to destroy the credibility of scripture.

Fine so i'm against Evolution, but most scientists side with it.

[Anonymous]

Scientists observe nature and then take those observations, formulate a theory then make the theory appear as fact.

No, they don't. Hence the title "theory" and hence the fact that every theory is subjected to numerous tests yet should one test show that the theory fails, the theory is either altered or abandoned, the data is not fudged.

Much of what they find in nature they alter in some way or shape so that it fits with a preconceived notion.

see above.

Then when a piece of evidence which flat out contradicts their theory comes about, scientists like to disregard it. Examples of this would be Darwinian Evolution and Big Bang (some scientist's will alter facts to make this universe creating explosion sound like it happened by chance).

I get the feeling that you do not understand the big bang theory. Would you like a physics major to explain it to you. Here's a hint: it wasn't an explosion. Furthermore, Darwin's theories on evolution are not the same as the currently accepted models. The theory has changed to fit new discoveries, but the fat remains that evolution did occur on this planet. Evolution is the theory that life has changed on this planet since it began. When's the last time you saw a Tyrannosaurus Rex walking the streets?

Scientists have cured what little they can mostly in the name of profit.

I think you're taking a far too jaded view of the scientific community. Sure the major drug companies may cure for a profit, but there are people who are truly dedicated to curing various illnesses for the benefit of humanity rather than their own pocketbooks.

Science also i may add has probably pushed more people away from christianity then anything else I can think of. Science should be about bringing people closer to God, not pushing them away.

If someone's faith is so weak that the thought that jehovah didn't describe exactly how the world was created in genesis makes them disbelieve then nuts to them, what do you care? Don't blame scientists because they find better ways of explaining the universe than the bible does. Blame the people who can't take it.

Basically when it comes to science, i believe we should be doing something along the lines of Natural Theology proposed by Paley as that actually has a our worldy purpose behind it in the glorification of God. Any thoughts or comments on this.

But that's not true science. True science does not rely on using the data to fit the hypothesis, but in fitting the theory to the data. If one has the preconceived notion that all of the experimental data must relate to god, then one is not preforming science, but rahter a pseudo science that is more akin to philosophy. It is one thing to say "Well, maybe god had a hand in this here, but then maybe it happened like this.." and quite another to say "God must have done this!" right off the bat before looking at any evidence.

What you are proposing is most certianly not science and frankly as a student of science, I find that idea disgusting.

[Anonymous]

I find you disgusting...j/k

Actually I know the Big Bang decently and actually it is an explosion. (i'm not a physicist or anywhere close to that field but ive read a lot of articles and so forth which paint the picture of a primortial atom exploding.

Darwinian evolution is accepted and taught at most schools as scientific, evolution proposed by Darwin has been tweaked and so forth, but its generally the same thing saying that life began as a result of natural selection. I view it be utter bull from a scientific perspective as well having gone over much of their "evidence".

Most scientists go into science believing their is no God as such when they find something that may point to God they disregard it or miss it all together. Its kind of like a non christian interpreting scripture, they come up with wacky conclusions. One example of this in science would be naturalism.

[Anonymous]

Actually I know the Big Bang decently and actually it is an explosion. (i'm not a physicist or anywhere close to that field but ive read a lot of articles and so forth which paint the picture of a primortial atom exploding.

Primordial atom?! What?

For one thing atoms didn't even come along until 100,000 years after the big bang or so. For another, the big bang theory starts with a singularity that expands, much like iflating a balloon... Not blowing up a building.

Darwinian evolution is accepted and taught at most schools as scientific, evolution proposed by Darwin has been tweaked and so forth, but its generally the same thing saying that life began as a result of natural selection. I view it be utter bull from a scientific perspective as well having gone over much of their "evidence".

I'm curious as to which "evidence" you find lacking. Other than of course, your complete misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution does not explain how life began, that is an entirely differnt matter (it's called abiogenesis) and furthermore the "tweaks" you refer to are the modifications of the theory to fit the observations. There is no reason to completely disgard the theory as no evidence has come up that has contradicted it completely, there have been small discrepancies, but the theory is altered, not the evidence.

Most scientists go into science believing their is no God as such when they find something that may point to God they disregard it or miss it all together. Its kind of like a non christian interpreting scripture, they come up with wacky conclusions. One example of this in science would be naturalism.

Explain my father then, he is a christian and he is a scientist. He holds that evolution and the big bang occured as they appear to have occured, but that god was acting behind the scenes in a way, starting everything off and silently directing the progress, making it appear natural. Furthermore, as god is a supernatural being who relies on people believing without proof (faith) there would not be any scientific evidence that points to a god that does not have a natural explanation as well. The principles of science do not allow one to randomly invoke a diety when one finds something they cannot immdeiately explain.

[Kurieuo]

Furthermore, as god is a supernatural being who relies on people believing without proof (faith) there would not be any scientific evidence that points to a god that does not have a natural explanation as well.

I strongly disagree with this assertion, that faith is blind. Some may have portrayed faith as being based on blindness, but such a concept is one taught nowhere biblically. Rather, we are told to test things (1 Thessalonians 5:21) and to love God just as much with our minds, as with our soul and spirit (Mark 12:30). Infact we are told that to renew our "minds" (intellectual understanding) so that we can test and discern what is good and acceptable to God (Romans 12:2). Additionally, in Acts 18:27-28, Apollos was encouraged to go to Achaia, one reason being because those there had only believed by "grace." In other words, they did not believe based on solid reason, but Apollos changed that upon arriving by debating, even convincing the Jews, by "proving" from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ. Based on these and other Scripture, we see that using the mind plays an important part to strengthening one's faith.

Kurieuo.

[Kurieuo]

The principles of science do not allow one to randomly invoke a diety when one finds something they cannot immdeiately explain.

It also does not allow one to randomly invoke nature when one finds something not that they cannot immediately explain, and which continues to become more and more of a problem as we gain further understanding, thus implying a true natural "gap" does exist (e.g., origin of life).

To do otherwise, is to often incorporate ones philosophical worldview into Science (in the case of assuming nature, methodological naturalism). Rather, Scientists should let the facts gathered speak for themselves, and allow each individual person to decide where Science leads. Instead, it seems Philosophical Naturalism has cloaked itself behind Science, blending itself behind the purpose of Science, which is to study nature.

Kurieuo.

[Anonymous]

It also does not allow one to randomly invoke nature when one finds something not that they cannot immediately explain, and which continues to become more and more of a problem as we gain further understanding, thus implying a true natural "gap" does exist (e.g., origin of life).

A lack of current understanding of the natural process does not denote a lack of future understanding, however. What current scientists cannot explain, they hypothesize about and test the hypotheses until they find one that stands up to the test. New discoveries that contradict formerly held theories (i.e. the disovery of the expansion of the universe) lead to abandoning old theories and research into new ones. Just because the exact origins of life have not been discovered does not mean that they never will be, thus it makes more sense to continue to look rather than to invoke a deity to fill in the holes in current understanding.

It is not learning if I simply say "My invisible friend did it" and forget about it only to invoke my nivisible friend whenever questioned.

To do otherwise, is to often incorporate ones philosophical worldview into Science (in the case of assuming nature, methodological naturalism). Rather, Scientists should let the facts gathered speak for themselves, and allow each individual person to decide where Science leads. Instead, it seems Philosophical Naturalism has cloaked itself behind Science, blending itself behind the purpose of Science, which is to study nature.

Everyone does draw their own conclusions, whether these conclusions are based on fact or not is another matter. For instance our friend vvart has drawn his own conclusions about the big bang which are based on an innacurate description of the theory. The purpose of the study of science is to gain an understanding of nature. As god is a supernatural being, discoveries about god cannot logically be made from a scientific perspective, as science studies the natural realm, i.e. the realm that god does not belong to. It is not randomly invoking nature, it is using natural processes to understand what has gone on. It is using the natural to explain and test natural phenomena. It is not science to use the supernatural to explain natural phenomena, that is the realm of theologians... I dont' know how to explain it any better than that. Science involves testing theories and hypotheses until they are either strenghtened or destroyed, you can't really test a theory with god...