Evolution and God does work

[archaeologist]

You know, I feel that I should defend some of my fellow scientists, some of whom simply define science as that material that can be tested, controlled, observed, and repeated. Not all are evil.

i am not saying they are all evil, though it may sound like it, i am pointing to the principles that 'guide' scientific work and think we need to redefine them for the way they are written it is impossible to include data which is vital to ascertain the truth.

Unfortunately, society has equated science with God lately or at least put science a the same level and purpose of God

i agree with you here and i think we are closer to each other in argument than you realize.

Scrap the scientific method? Simply cahnge the philosophy?

i believe it is important for believers to scrap the secular ways and look at God to direct them find the way science should be done. we are not to walk in the counsel of the ungodly nor are we to lean to our own understanding thus believers need to shake off what is not of God and make a new way.

we must remember that God says , His way is not man's which gives us a clue as to how to lookat the secular methods and see what is or isn;t of God and make changes inour own approach to science.

i do not call for a removal of science--not at all. i am saying that people who say they follow God must do so in all areas of life and not just the religious part of it.

believers represent God and God does not compromise, tus it is the responsibility of the follower to find out how God wants it done and teach that method.

as i said before, secularists do not own science or any other field and do not get to make the rules of how things are to be done. believers are not to follow the blind but we are to follow the light.

you are the science teacher,you should have a fairly good idea of what is right or wrong in the scientific method and what should be changed, use your head, listen to God.

science should be used to answer questions not create more of them. science in essence, does not care about what happens to people, by the time they figure out the answer, too many souls will be lost.

To add, I think scientists will be the most...surprised (for lack of a better word).

i can agree with you here.

[zoegirl]

I am asking you to defein what you believe to be the practical application of "allowing God" back into science. I already have/know what I believe. What do you believe?

The scientific method is simply a tool. An observational set of guidelines that help us set us controlled experiments. Does this medecine help? What does this plant hormone do? How can we use what we have learned to have better crops. I think it is perfectly acceptable to have Christian scientists still using controlled experients.

It is the philosophy of the scientists that interfere with objective study of the data. Unfortunately, unless you can instantly convert them, this will continually happen.

Please tell me what you think the practical application of allowing God into science. How would a CHirstian scientist experiment differently?

[archaeologist]

what i believe is that scientists start on the right track and then at the crucial moment they veer off into some theory and mess up their work.

The scientific method is simply a tool

that i already know.

An observational set of guidelines that help us set us controlled experiments.

but do we need chemicals, with their side effects influencing our lives? maybe christian scientists could develope the natural medicines God has already provided? do they actually need to work on experiments that produce harmful results?

it isn't just the philosophy but the direction of science that needs to be looked at but then, i am just investigating right now and not thinking of alternatives. i need more information.

[zoegirl]

Many of the new medecines are derived from plants and animals. Many new reseach studies for anticlotting medicines use the chemicals found within the saliva of vampire bats or leeches. Aspirin is derived from willow bark.

Even naturally derived medecines have side effects. Aspirain will still poison you if you take too much at one time. Part of understanding the nature of medicines is HOW they work and then how our body uses them, so that we get the dosage right. Unfortunatley this is where our finite understanding becomes a problem, because we will always be seeing "through a glass darkly" we will never have the perfect insight or that communion with God that we had in the Garden.

Some of the biggest problems arise with the application of research by non-Christian scientists...meaning the ethical considerations. That, I think is far more problematic than the process itself.

I just wanted to know what you meant when you say that we should change science. Thank you.

[archaeologist]

Even naturally derived medecines have side effects

yes and cocaine comes form the coca plant, opium from the poppy. i see your point but those dangers come from different processing and in my opinion do not match up with the side effects from chemicals.

i see that christian scientists need to take the bull by the horns so to speak and start separating humanistic thinking and practices from science.

i think science can provide answers if applied properly.

An observational set of guidelines that help us set us controlled experiments

are these guidelines form God? this is not a fanatical question or point of view just an inquiry into if there are other options available or do we have to do everything according to the secularist who has no motivation to provide results that support God or the Bible.

[zoegirl]

Even naturally derived medecines have side effects

yes and cocaine comes form the coca plant, opium from the poppy. i see your point but those dangers come from different processing and in my opinion do not match up with the side effects from chemicals.

i see that christian scientists need to take the bull by the horns so to speak and start separating humanistic thinking and practices from science.

i think science can provide answers if applied properly.

An observational set of guidelines that help us set us controlled experiments

are these guidelines form God? this is not a fanatical question or point of view just an inquiry into if there are other options available or do we have to do everything according to the secularist who has no motivation to provide results that support God or the Bible.

The scientific method or controlled experiment simply provide data and if done correctly, valid data. Data itself must be analyzed. It is the SCIENTIST and his/her sin that misuses the data. And even saved scientists misuse data, as I believe many YEC's do with their data.


What would you consider other options? Give me some alternate means of study if not the controleld experiment. How else should we study the effects of medicines if not to use control groups?

[archaeologist]

What would you consider other options? Give me some alternate means of study if not the controleld experiment. How else should we study the effects of medicines if not to use control groups

you are the stated scientist, does this mean you can't see areas in your own field which need to be changed?

i will think on it for you.

[zoegirl]

I am not asking you to do my thinking for me

I see no problem with the scientific method. I believe I have already stated my position. Controlled experiments can provide valid data. The analysis can be the prblem. Scientists are human and are prone to biases and philosophies, Christian and non-Christian alike. Unfortunatley unless you can convert them all, we will always have this problem. the key is continual debate and research.

YOu have stated that there should be alternatives. I don't feel the need. So the onus is on you to provide alternatives that provide the same power as the scientific method, which allows us to be able to pinpoint cause and effect.

[archaeologist]

I don't feel the need

therein lies the problem, neither do the secularists

Unfortunately unless you can convert them all

which you can't do

the key is continual debate and research

no i will disagree with you as debate sometimes forgets what is important, which is finding the truth. debate does not foster an atmosphere in which the answers will become miracously clear. nor does research, though more so than debate will.

if one uses the guidelines set up by the secularists, which science has been, how much truth do you think you will find if you follow their ways and methods?

sure secularists can find truth, that is not the point but once it is found, what is done with the discovery?