Evidence for God from Science

frankbaginski wrote:Hi all,

Man cannot serve two masters. So when a disagreement occurs between science and Scripture what do you do? Do you allegorize science or scripture? Man is wholly responsible for one of these and the Holy Spirit is reponsible for the other. Just how does one go about this ground that both seem to define?

It is a common YEC fallacy to place the issue as one of "man" (science) versus God (Scripture) since man is required to interpret both science and Scripture. Furthermore, Scripture (God's special revelation) supports looking to God's natural revelation (creation) for truth. Just take a look at Romans 1. I also find it interesting you would think man is wholly responsible for God's own creation.

As I accept both God's special and natural revelation as true, when a disagreement appears to occur between the two the issue must lie with me. That is, either I am interpreting God's special revelation wrong, or I am interpreting God's natural revelation wrong.

Kurieuo wrote: Please leave. I'm about to surpass your post count.

Only two more posts to pass Kmart, K!

K,

The point I am making is that you must chose one to view the other. Do you take scripture to view science or do you take science to view scripture. If you take:

Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

And change it into 14 billion years. Just where do you stop?

Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

One could say that "but by me" means an indwelling spirit that is in all of us. The Budist think the way is inward. The new age people think the way is inward as well. So how can we say they are wrong?

Isa 42:5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

So using science as our guide we are expected to believe that God waited for 14 billion years for man to evolve then gave people the breath of life? Or did He give the first cell the breath of life and then made sure it only passed on in the correct path to man. At some point it does not pass the common sense test.

The bulk of science has no issue with scripture what so ever. Only biology, geology, and astrophysics have issues and they all have common theories that cause the divergence. I think man got the theories wrong. But I have no problem with others forming their own opinions on all of this.

Good luck on your number of post!!! I will help out.

frankbaginski wrote:Hi all,

Man cannot serve two masters. So when a disagreement occurs between science and Scripture what do you do? Do you allegorize science or scripture? Man is wholly responsible for one of these and the Holy Spirit is reponsible for the other. Just how does one go about this ground that both seem to define?

I for one do not place my faith in man. Man it seems does not concern it self with the preservation of the soul. In fact man seems to say that it does not even exist. Just look at the line form at the abortion clinic. A recent PBS show on the earth started out by saying man believed the Bible until science came along. No explaination was given, it was stated as fact. You see there are two masters. You cannot keep a foot in each camp. Where science and the Bible disagree I always chose the Bible and say man has it wrong. The only people who give me greif on this are people who are grounded in science.

If a man of science comes up with a new theory which "disproves the Bible" he will get awards, his books will be pushed by all of the major newspapers, He will be invited to the talk shows. The science magazines will call him a learned man. He will be invited by the Universities to teach at their schools. If however a man of science says the Bible is right and science has it wrong then he is tossed from the university. Banned from the talk shows, and his books are not published. Now one of these men has treasures on the earth and the other has treasures in heaven. So a book written so long ago predicted this and thousands of other events. So I ask again, who is your master?

The only problem with this that I see is that you're missing in my opinion, is that man's interpretation is the lens through which the creation and the creator (through the Bible) are viewed.

God gave us the Bible. God created this world. There is no conflict between the creation and the creator's revelation in my belief and opinion.

There is all kinds of conflict between science and theology because they each have a common denominator .... the interpretation of man, who is fallen, and finite.

So, no, you don't necessarily pick one camp or the other. If there's a conflict you have several options:

1. You can accept your interpretation of the Bible and reject science, man's interpretation of the creation.
2. You can accept science and reject the interpretation of the Bible that appears to conflict with it.
3. You can accept that there are some issues which are going to be irreconcilable to our satisfaction and embrace the ambiguity and place your faith above your understanding, accepting that God has an answer. This is what I think we do with mysteries, by the way, such as the Trinity for example.
4. You can reject both interpretations and seek to reconcile the two in some manner by adjusting each to whatever degree you need to come to some satisfactory understanding that fits the information you have on both sides until additional information caused you to do it over again. This is how I think some see old earth creationists or theistic evolutionists.

There's probably other variances and nuances in there as well, but I think that captures the 4 different relationships that can exist between those two basic premises.

The problem I see with saying you accept that Bible and reject science, because you have to accept one or the other is that that statement fails to account for the interpretation of the Bible itself and it in effect elevates one particular interpretation of the Bible, (YEC for example, although i suppose you could do it with OEC too) and you allow no change, no compromise, no humility and no room to learn and adjust and grow as you mature and hopefully learn more.

Kurieuo wrote:

frankbaginski wrote:Hi all,

Man cannot serve two masters. So when a disagreement occurs between science and Scripture what do you do? Do you allegorize science or scripture? Man is wholly responsible for one of these and the Holy Spirit is reponsible for the other. Just how does one go about this ground that both seem to define?

It is a common YEC fallacy to place the issue as one of "man" (science) versus God (Scripture) since man is required to interpret both science and Scripture. Furthermore, Scripture (God's special revelation) supports looking to God's natural revelation (creation) for truth. Just take a look at Romans 1. I also find it interesting you would think man is wholly responsible for God's own creation.

As I accept both God's special and natural revelation as true, when a disagreement appears to occur between the two the issue must lie with me. That is, either I am interpreting God's special revelation wrong, or I am interpreting God's natural revelation wrong.

Ah, I typed too fast. i should have known one of my partners in crime would beat me to the punch and say it better and shorter.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Yeah I caused the topic to derail. I actually started posting again because after looking up an old thread, I realized I still had the most posts, but not by much.

Which thread were you looking up?

Yes, man's interpretation of scripture is a big issue. Just look at the Church. It is a mess.

1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

There is a "Christian Church" out there with a gay Bishop. I want to know if this is middle ground?

Jesus said:

Luk 12:49 I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?
Luk 12:50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!
Luk 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
Luk 12:52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.
Luk 12:53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

I suppose we are to allegorize this into love each other no matter what they believe and do?

What this world needs is a giant fight of faith. This chipping away of the foundations of scripture are a terrible thing to watch. Just how many Churches today are run and teach what the Church Fathers taught? When was the last time you saw Revelation taught in Church? When was the last time you heard in Church that God made the earth in six days?

I reject the notion of compromise. There is no foundation in scripture for it.

frankbaginski wrote:Yes, man's interpretation of scripture is a big issue. Just look at the Church. It is a mess.

1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

There is a "Christian Church" out there with a gay Bishop. I want to know if this is middle ground?

Jesus said:

Luk 12:49 I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?
Luk 12:50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!
Luk 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
Luk 12:52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.
Luk 12:53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

I suppose we are to allegorize this into love each other no matter what they believe and do?

What this world needs is a giant fight of faith. This chipping away of the foundations of scripture are a terrible thing to watch. Just how many Churches today are run and teach what the Church Fathers taught? When was the last time you saw Revelation taught in Church? When was the last time you heard in Church that God made the earth in six days?

I reject the notion of compromise. There is no foundation in scripture for it.

So what is your solution? Do you have a means to eliminate man's interpretation as a factor in understanding Scripture? Do tell, please.

But there *are* many issues of Christian faith that differ amongst the denominations. What happens during communion, infant versus adult baptism, election, predestination, the end-times....and yet we see these issues as having multiple interpretations. While I believe that reformed theology is the more biblical, am I going to say that others will not be saved because they don't believe in infant baptism or predestination?

That being said, I think you are stretching what happens in other creation models, especially since none who adhere to progessive creationism call into question the fallibility of scripture. We do not accuse Genesis of being an allegory or simply a cute story, but rather look to the Hebrew language and see the different meanings in the Hebrew words. Anf therefore, we do not threaten the credibility

In Genesis, we see a Mighty and MAjestic God, completely in control of the creation. He accomplishes what He wills and calls it good. You want to see us as throwing out scripture and therefore calling into question the credibility of other scriptures. But if you listen to how we examine scripture, none of us call Genesis an allegory. Those who examine scripture see it speaking about a different set of events, but still understand the Majesty and Involvement of God.

People may read Genesis and declare that God, by direct fiat, called into existence everything, but does this absence of a process (although if you read the section on godandscience.org, the Hebrew words can be shown to reflect a process) directly mean a proof that there wasn't one? HOw does progressive creationsim call into question God's sovereignty?

Hi frankbaginski.

Firstly, let me say I have read your posts here and there, and while I do not agree with much of what you say, I think you are quite unique when compared with the usual YECs I often find myself dialoguing with. So it is a privilege to finally discuss these issues with you directly.

frankbaginski wrote:K,

The point I am making is that you must chose one to view the other.

I do not get why we must choose one over the other. Surely, you do not believe if creation is properly understood it would contradict Scripture? God after all, we believe, is responsible for providing both. Canuckster replied with the various positions one can take if they "appear" to be in conflict which I would agree with.

frank wrote:Do you take scripture to view science or do you take science to view scripture.

I do not think this question can be affirmed as sound for it already presumes one must do either or. I view Scripture and I view the world around me. I view both through my own lens of my life as you do through yours, and I do my best to discover the truths within both. In the past I have been left holding the two in conflict, but eventually I see a way they are compatible whether it is something I missed in Scripture or I lacked a scientific explanation. GodandScience.org is great for working through many such issues.

Now let me repeat something I said quite some time ago in another thread:

K wrote:To make a comment at this point, I never did biology although I studied the cosmos a little within my Earth Science class. In the general science subject I never paid much attention either. I never needed to do much with science since my main interest was with computing and information technology which I went on to study at university. So I think it is important at this point to state that I was never influenced by an evolutionary position in my decisions regarding creation as this is a claim often leveled again Christians taking a different position to YEC. My take on the Genesis creation days was based purely upon my own understanding. That is until I was 20 and began listening to creation tapes by Ken Ham. Within he said something like, "there is only one main reason why people do not accept the days in Genesis are literal 24-hour days... and that reason is because they don't have faith!" Oddly enough I remember my listening being interrupted by Jehovah's Witnesses knocking on my door, and never returned to listen to those tapes again. I was a little annoyed that some "pastor" would say I didn't have faith; however, I remember taking aboard that the days were 24-hour days since, in my naivety, I thought he was the pastor and would know the Bible better than me.

While I have come a long way in my knowledge since, I see my personal story as an indirect refutation of the YEC claim that the beliefs of OEC (particularly Day-Age) are based on science rather than Scripture. I can never buy into that false claim since I have myself as a living example of it being false. Whenever YECs proclaim this, I will often loose a lot of respect for them especially if I tell them my story and they treat me as though I'm a lier. You wouldn't believe, or then perhaps you are different and would

Now even if it were the case one looked at Scripture through the lens of science, science is simply an examination of God's creation. Given Scripture is God's special revelation, there should never be a contradiction between the two when both are properly understood.

frank wrote:If you take:

Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

I believe God made everything in six days. My understanding of day yom however is different to yours. Tell me. Do you believe the seventh day is over?

frank wrote:Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

One could say that "but by me" means an indwelling spirit that is in all of us. The Budist think the way is inward. The new age people think the way is inward as well. So how can we say they are wrong?

Firstly, I believe Christ is all those things including being the only way to God. I believe I am lead by the Holy Spirit, and when I look back I see that He has guided me through life. As for those other religious views, we can say they are wrong because we believe differently, no?

frank wrote:Isa 42:5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

So using science as our guide we are expected to believe that God waited for 14 billion years for man to evolve then gave people the breath of life? Or did He give the first cell the breath of life and then made sure it only passed on in the correct path to man. At some point it does not pass the common sense test.

I see nothing contrary in my beliefs to the Isaiah passage.

Using science as our guide, the origins of life continues to remain a puzzle for strict Naturalists. Have you not read the articles on the GodandScience.org website regarding evolution and so on? Science is never one-sided. It just so happens to be the case that in our current social climate philosophical naturalism dominates many sciences, and as such only purely naturalistic conclusions based on what we observe are seen as acceptable. Funnily enough, modern science was "fathered" by Christians who sought to understand God's creation more intimately. Assuming design meant the world around us was structured in a coherent manner rather than being unpredictable, and as such could be understood. Thus, understanding how the world worked was understanding how God made things to work. Founding "fathers" of science were devout Christians (including Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, and Pascal). Refer to http://www.reasons.org/resources/apolog ... ence.shtml for more.

frank wrote:The bulk of science has no issue with scripture what so ever. Only biology, geology, and astrophysics have issues and they all have common theories that cause the divergence. I think man got the theories wrong. But I have no problem with others forming their own opinions on all of this.

You say "I think man got the[ir] theories wrong". Sounds like you also believe science and Scripture should also be in harmony when each are properly understood, yes? We can agree with each other here. The only thing that differs is our interpretation of Scripture and science. I believe mine is the correct understanding of Scripture, whereas you believe yours is. I have written a great deal on this board about why I believe the Day-Age perspective is more Scriptural and accurate. But such an issue, I guess, is to be debated respectfully with every new person.

frank wrote:Good luck on your number of post!!! I will help out.

Thanks This one should do it... for now.

Of course I do not have an inside track on understanding scripture. This is why I do not tell people they are going to hell unless they see it my way. That of course would be very foolish and I could be so wrong in my interpretation. That being said I see science (in a limited way ) being used as a pribar to pull people from faith. I do not see an effort from people of faith to push back against that science. A small current in only one direction will push everything in one direction. If we are called to witness then what is that? I don't think that is to sit back and watch the world go to hell and wait for the rapture.

When we argue about the Word of God and try to come to some understanding we get close to God for the effort. The fact that we care for the Words and try and see how it all fits together is a work in itself. When you take God's creation and bring it into the mix it makes the scripture come alive. When you take Biblical archaeology and bring it in it also comes alive.

Have you ever kept track of how many times a day you hear or see something that directly contradicts the Bible? Start looking at who said or wrote these things you see. I laugh at them now. The world is the devils playground and doubt is his friend.

Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

Mat 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

Jesus calls Himself meek. The creator of the universe is meek, so power is not a measure of meek. I think the answer to this thread is in the answer to this question. Who are the meek?

When I talk to someone who is very new to faith and they ask me what do I think about science, this is what I say:

Yes we have a bunch of men who think they have all figured out. The only problem is they keep changing their mind all of the time. If you really want to know about why we are here you should read scripture written by God who made the universe. Man studies it, God made it. God also tells us how to prepare for the afterlife, those science guys can't study something they can't see. It is fun to read science but the real story is about whats inside of you and where are you going.

frankbaginski wrote:Of course I do not have an inside track on understanding scripture. This is why I do not tell people they are going to hell unless they see it my way. That of course would be very foolish and I could be so wrong in my interpretation. That being said I see science (in a limited way ) being used as a pribar to pull people from faith. I do not see an effort from people of faith to push back against that science. A small current in only one direction will push everything in one direction. If we are called to witness then what is that? I don't think that is to sit back and watch the world go to hell and wait for the rapture.

When we argue about the Word of God and try to come to some understanding we get close to God for the effort. The fact that we care for the Words and try and see how it all fits together is a work in itself. When you take God's creation and bring it into the mix it makes the scripture come alive. When you take Biblical archaeology and bring it in it also comes alive.

Have you ever kept track of how many times a day you hear or see something that directly contradicts the Bible? Start looking at who said or wrote these things you see. I laugh at them now. The world is the devils playground and doubt is his friend.

Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

Mat 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

Jesus calls Himself meek. The creator of the universe is meek, so power is not a measure of meek. I think the answer to this thread is in the answer to this question. Who are the meek?

When I talk to someone who is very new to faith and they ask me what do I think about science, this is what I say:

Yes we have a bunch of men who think they have all figured out. The only problem is they keep changing their mind all of the time. If you really want to know about why we are here you should read scripture written by God who made the universe. Man studies it, God made it. God also tells us how to prepare for the afterlife, those science guys can't study something they can't see. It is fun to read science but the real story is about whats inside of you and where are you going.

Frank,

I think you might be equating science with atheism or assuming that all scientists are materialists, positivists or reject.

Or, there may even be a hint of gnosticism here which assumes only that which is spiritual can be good, and all that is physical is evil or bad.

My I suggest that you try and differentiate more between science as a method in the narrow sense which just seeks to understand the universe and the laws that govern it, and that which some build upon it which goes beyond real science and masquerades as science when it is actually making the assumption that only that which is material is real?

I find myself wanting to agree with some of what you are saying but I think your terms are making it difficult for me, and maybe others because you're attributing different meanings to the words than how they are commonly used.

Do you think you can see how that may be happening?

Bart

Kurieuo,

YEC or OEC actually means very little to me. I am sure that the impression I give does not reflect that though. I am quite sure that when I die and reality is explained to me I will have most of everything wrong. I argue the YEC case because I don't want to give the OEC theories a free ride. I do consider myself a YEC but don't expect or would desire that people use this as a measure of faith. It is not.

This post is about middle ground and where do you place your stake in the ground. When I quote scripture and say that the earth was made in six days I would hope to get a better response like:

"Oh silly Frank, who cares how long it took. We are to walk in the spirit and all this earthly stuff does not matter anyway."

Oh that we could cast aside our ties to this earth and walk in the spirit. But we have a job to do while we are here. That job is to do the work of Christ. He gave us instructions on how to save souls. Now some of the details I do have some opinions on and I do place my stake in the ground maybe just a little more towards the literal side than most. I do not consider this a bad thing ( that most place their stakes somewhere else).

Canuckster1127,

I need to know what words you think I am using outside of there common meaning? If the word is meek then I agree but I will make that clear soon.

I am so glad this thread was started. This to me is a fundamental subject that is a basis for most arguements between Christians.

What is really sad is I think the whole subject is always discussed in the details of science and it should be discussed in the details of faith. When I first read the Bible the most striking thing that hit me was a total lack of grey area. After thinking about this it made perfect sense and this to me was a fingerprint of God for man would never write something so polarized. So for me I think we should be discussing the dividing line between the spirit and the flesh. If one answers this then the dividing line for science and faith should fall out as a matter of secondary default.

To me meek is low of personal spirit and strong in the spirit of God. This would make Jesus the most meek man ever to have lived. By His example He cared little for the flesh so we should place the flesh in its proper place. A useful tool for the spirit but never the master. In this same sense I care little for the theories of science. None of them matter to me, if I understand them, does this help in my salvation? I learn about them as a matter of curiousity and to help with being a good witness.

At one time people who studied the sciences treated the material world as a curiosity and their faith was outside of their search for answers in the material world. I think that is the way it should be today. Sadly it is not. Science has injected itself into politics and into the morals of this country. To view science today as a indifferent bystander is wrong. There is plenty of bad science out there. A lot of it being cast as fact when the jury is still out. The faith of the average college professor is not the faith of the average guy on the street. Why is that? They will tell you if you ask them.