Evidence for God from Science

The word "science" is written only two times in the entire Bible.

Dan 1:4, Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans. (KJV)

1Tim 6:20, O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

This is what the word science means in the original Hebrew language utilized in Daniel, from Strong's concordance:

Strong's (4093) madda`
mad-daw'
or maddai {mad-dah'}; from 'yada`' (3045); intelligence or consciousness:--knowledge, science, thought.

This is what the word science means in the original Greek language, utilized in first Timothy from Strong's concordance:

Strong's (1108),gnosis
gno'-sis
from ginwskw - ginosko 1097; knowing (the act), i.e. (by implication) knowledge:--knowledge, science.

True science only goes to prove that the Word of God is true. As a kid, I grew up in a little town on the east coast of Canada in Newfoundland. I lived about 8 miles away from the oldest fossilized remains in the world, located at Mistaken Point, Newfoundland, which the Canadian government a number of years ago, made a national historic site. The fossils are on order of 500 million years old.

http://geol.queensu.ca/museum/exhibits/ ... en_pt.html

I'm sure like many of you, I find it humorous when you hear some Christians say that the the earth is 6000 years old, when fossilized remains prove it is ancient and the Bible itself declares that there was an age or eon before the one we presently live in, that scientists have broken down into various era's or epoch's of time.

The Pope may claim to speak for Christianity. For me, as a former Catholic, he speaks for his own church, unless someone wants to show me in scripture where that particular church was given the authority by Christ to represent all Christendom.

He may be a wise man and I do agree with him on some points. When he first became Pope, during one of his first speeches, he said that that the world was spiralling downwards towards a tyranny of relativism, which I agree with because that is the way the Bible says the social structure of humans will disintegrate into before the end of this age:

Relativism. Definition from the American heritage dictionary. A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.

Christians believe in absolute truth because Jesus says his Word is truth and he also adds I tell you the truth. For relativism to be a true concept, not even relativism can be true, because relativism states that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute. Not even relativism.

2Thess 2:3, Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first,

That falling away described there is what is known as the great apostacy or turning away from the truth of the Christian faith by many. Science is just one of the factors, just like other belief systems, that many people would rather believe than the truth of the Word.

Daniel was a prophet, highly esteemed by God. Yet it says in the above scripture he was cunning in understanding science.

Paul, stresses to Timothy, don't be opposed to science in the above scripture because as he says in the next verse:

1Tim 6:21, Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.

In other words, some professing Christians have made errors regarding science, concerning the faith.

Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein believed in God. Newton once said that all the great laws of physics he discovered were created by God for him to discover. Einstein once said this, which is my favorite quote by him:

As a child I received instruction, both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, though I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene...No one can read the Gospels, without feeling the very presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.

If geniuses like Newton and Einstein would believe in God and not deny that Jesus existed, why would those of lesser intellect not believe, considering that these two scientists were the two greatest scientific geniuses that the human race produced?

Jesus gives the answer:

Jn 3:19, And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20, For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

As time goes on, more and more people will turn away from the faith, some seduced by science. It is written.

Clearly stated, Canuckster. But I am not sure the 2 are easily distinguishable. Let me elaborate:

If you are familiar with Venn diagrams, imagine one large circle that encompasses all thesitic beliefs that require divine intervention in the origins and diversity of life (and the universe for that matter). Within that circle would be a subset of people that believe strictly in YEC and allow no room for evolution. Another circle would encompass those people who strictly believe that god(s) intervened in the production of IC structures. And then another circle would encompass those people that believe that god(s) intervened at some point not necessarily restricted to IC structures (e.g. that god(s) designed the universe at the point of the Big Bang and stopped thereafter). Now, circles 2 and 3 can overlap in varying degrees depending on how much intervention you think occurred - but the point is they do overlap. After all, if a designer can create incredibly complex structures in living organisms, what it preventing them from acting in other areas of our natural universe? And if this designer is really really smart, why can't they have designed the physical laws that govern our universe? The designer is bound by nothing except our lack of knowledge about what they are and are not capable of doing.

My point is only this: it seems disingenuous of someone who is a theistic evolutionist in the strictest sense (i.e. no intervention after the Big Bang) to accuse an IDer of being unscientific in their explanatory model. To me it really just boils down to when a theistic evolutionist believes god(s) intervened - and whether it was once, or thousands of times, the fact remains that both camps believe in divine intervention. And it is even more disingenuous for a theistic evolutionist to claim that they can permit divine intervention prior to the Big Bang and before the laws that govern our universe were created - and are therefore insulated from scientific investigation while an IDer is bound by the fact that their acts of intervention occurred after the laws of the universe were in play - making their intervention outside the laws of science.

And so I am confused when someone says we are marching away from theistic evolution towards ID. What does this mean? That "we" are simply accepting more acts of divine intervention?

ARWallace wrote:Clearly stated, Canuckster. But I am not sure the 2 are easily distinguishable. Let me elaborate:

If you are familiar with Venn diagrams, imagine one large circle that encompasses all thesitic beliefs that require divine intervention in the origins and diversity of life (and the universe for that matter). Within that circle would be a subset of people that believe strictly in YEC and allow no room for evolution. Another circle would encompass those people who strictly believe that god(s) intervened in the production of IC structures. And then another circle would encompass those people that believe that god(s) intervened at some point not necessarily restricted to IC structures (e.g. that god(s) designed the universe at the point of the Big Bang and stopped thereafter). Now, circles 2 and 3 can overlap in varying degrees depending on how much intervention you think occurred - but the point is they do overlap. After all, if a designer can create incredibly complex structures in living organisms, what it preventing them from acting in other areas of our natural universe? And if this designer is really really smart, why can't they have designed the physical laws that govern our universe? The designer is bound by nothing except our lack of knowledge about what they are and are not capable of doing.

My point is only this: it seems disingenuous of someone who is a theistic evolutionist in the strictest sense (i.e. no intervention after the Big Bang) to accuse an IDer of being unscientific in their explanatory model. To me it really just boils down to when a theistic evolutionist believes god(s) intervened - and whether it was once, or thousands of times, the fact remains that both camps believe in divine intervention. And it is even more disingenuous for a theistic evolutionist to claim that they can permit divine intervention prior to the Big Bang and before the laws that govern our universe were created - and are therefore insulated from scientific investigation while an IDer is bound by the fact that their acts of intervention occurred after the laws of the universe were in play - making their intervention outside the laws of science.

And so I am confused when someone says we are marching away from theistic evolution towards ID. What does this mean? That "we" are simply accepting more acts of divine intervention?

Theoretically, the points of overlap are certainly true and in terms of effect as to when and how divine intervention takes place you have a point.

In terms of practical intent and differentiation, I think what I stated effectively covers the general territory in terms of how to effectively use the terms in the context of the overall conversation.

In terms of the pope's comments, I simply posted them up to see if they would spur conversation. The RCC church has for many years effectively been Theistic Evolutionists in terms of their practice and official positions. Historically, some see this as a response to some of the history of the RCC such as with Galileo. Pope John Paul II actually issued an apology (or something close to it) in 1992.

I'm not Catholic nor do I follow their positions in this regard very closely. I doubt seriously the the RCC church is going to denounce evolution as a science. What is being addressed I think is the resultant philosophy that arises from a purely scientific viewpoint when its limitations to viewing only that which is physical is carried into a philosophical realm. As such, I think the concerns of this current Pope are more to the results of that extension, than science itself. It's a very fine line however and very few people go to the trouble of defining their terms well enough to make that distinction.

I personally do not define myself as a Theistic Evolutionist, simply because I don't believe enough information is present to limit myself to that definition on the basis of the evidence alone. Two very prominent men whom I respect do define themselves in that manner, those being C.S. Lewis and Francis Collins of the human genome project. I wouldn't be threatened or disappointed were Theistic Evolution to prove to be the truth. If God chose to use that process and means as an expression of His creativity, I marvel at the beauty of it and it doesn't detract from my faith one bit. My faith is in the creator and not the means of creation.

I do find some arguments compelling toward that position. The common positioning of genes within mammals combined with common "junk DNA" is a very compelling argument unless that junk DNA could be proven to in fact have a purpose which is heretofore unknown. The idea of a common creator using a similar structural process is plausible as well, but the idea that God would deliberately intermingle structures in this manner where there were in fact no common ancestors, to purposely deceive those seeking understanding speaks of a very different God than what I read of in the Bible and I find that argument no more compelling than the apparant age type creation theories that I used to be exposed to when I was a Young Earth Creationist, many, many years ago.

So, to get back on topic. I think you can effectively place a great deal of common ground between ID and TE. In a real sense I think you can argue, as you note, that the effect of when divine intervention took place in the end is moot, especially if we are talking about a creator who transcends time and space. Our perspective makes that a difficult concept to wrap around.

Apart from all the possibilities that arise in the panoply of how God accomplished his creation, I think we have to recognize that while appreciating those possibilities, the reality is that among the various options He could have used, in the end He did use one or some of them. It may be that because of the nature of the evidence which is limited to the physical that we will never reach a clear conclusion as to how He did it in every detail. I'm OK with that. My faith doesn't demand that knowledge although I think it's an honorable pursuit to come to as best an understanding as we can. I'm able to accept mystery and embrace it. I work hard not to use that as a copout or excuse for not putting the hard work into examining and understanding what I can. At the end of the day however, I strive to see Science in its role and context for the physical and recognize there is far more than the physical alone and what Science can do. I don't see a conflict when each is in their proper role.

Katabole ,

Here is part of the page you referenced on Mistaken Point.

"This close-up of a bedding surface at Mistaken Point shows spindle-like fossils preserved beneath a thick bed of volcanic ash. This ash formed from a volcanic eruption that covered the living community and preserved the organisms as impressions on the top of the underlying bed. Zircons in the volcanic ash have been dated at 565±3 million years old (U-Pb), confirming that these are the oldest diverse "

Did you know that a by product of the U232 - Pb decay was helium? Did you know that helium drifts out of rock structures and its rate can determine the age of the rock by seeing how much is still in the rock? Did you know that most of the original helium is still in the rock? So you are telling me that some people published an article and then you went back and adjusted your view of the Bible to fit a report of man? I used to do this same thing but no more. The foundation of long age rest on a very few assumptions and each day they crumble more and more.

I am one of those Christians that make you laugh. I am happy that you find humor in my beliefs. I have studied in detail the dating methods of rocks and organic matter. There are big problems. So until someone can explain all of the items which indicate a young earth I have to allow the possiblity that the earth is 8000 years old.

So on one hand we have people saying that everything is real old. On the other hand we have people that study erosion and tell a different story. On one hand we have people who say that everything we see can be extended into the past. Others say the past is vastly different. It appears to me that you have accepted one view from one group. Using this view you filter the Word through that lense. We all have preconceptions, I am no different. I have started to reject all commonly accepted explainations of age and process. I have gone back and looked at the basic research to see how those opinions were made. What I found is that nearly 100% of we what we thought to be settled science is in fact theory. Knowing this I had to reject this foundation and view the scripture without a filter, as best that I could. I am open to any view which holds to all data. I have not found this is the case with science of biology and geology. It is common in a physics class to study multiple theories on one aspect of matter or space. It is so common that everyone expects it and if someone were to only show one view they would feel cheated in a college class. Why is a biology class and geology class so different? I ask you to examine your view of science. Are you in fact using a theory of man to filter scripture? If you get that lost feeling, welcome to the crowd. Maybe we are not supposed to have a grounding except in scripture.

frank wrote:Maybe we are not supposed to have a grounding except in scripture.

At the risk of getting off the thread I can't let this pass.

What makes you think those of us who support OEC DON'T have a grounding in anything but scripture? We understand that God's creation is a valid testimony to HIm as well as HIs scripture. WE examine both as a record of WHAT He did and perhaps How He did it, not WHETHER He did it.

NOne of the OEC Christians here, at least to my knowledge, discredit the accounting of Genesis as true and reliable.

I take exception to this statement as it implies that we sacrifice scripture....

Zoegirl,

The question is not OEC or YEC. These are but examples. The question is do you view scripture through a filter. The jews in Jerusalem did not accept Christ because they had a preconception that He would be a leader that would free Israel from the Romans. They would not see Him as He was because of a filter. Are we doing the same thing with the Word to some degree? I don't think the effect is enough to change being a Christian but it is a serious issue. If we at least don't allow for this possiblity then we are blind. It is a well known fact that Christians do view various verses differently. Over time these differences have become greater. Why has this happened? Is this trend due to errors in scripture? If so then the whole Word is in question. The other day I watched a PBS show about evolution. It started with a picture of a Bible and said in the past people believed in the Old Testament, it stated that science has now shown that Genesis is wrong. They then went on to talk about monkeys. Do you not see this? Does this not concern you? At what point do Christians push back? Just what is a Christian? How do we define what we are? Do we now ask for a show of hands of the atheist Phd's to define the belief of Christians?

The Pope is right, now is the time to pull back the curtain and expose the man holding the controls to the wizard.

frankbaginski wrote: The question is not OEC or YEC. These are but examples. The question is do you view scripture through a filter. The jews in Jerusalem did not accept Christ because they had a preconception that He would be a leader that would free Israel from the Romans. They would not see Him as He was because of a filter. Are we doing the same thing with the Word to some degree? I don't think the effect is enough to change being a Christian but it is a serious issue. If we at least don't allow for this possiblity then we are blind. It is a well known fact that Christians do view various verses differently. Over time these differences have become greater. Why has this happened? Is this trend due to errors in scripture? If so then the whole Word is in question. The other day I watched a PBS show about evolution. It started with a picture of a Bible and said in the past people believed in the Old Testament, it stated that science has now shown that Genesis is wrong. They then went on to talk about monkeys. Do you not see this? Does this not concern you? At what point do Christians push back? Just what is a Christian? How do we define what we are? Do we now ask for a show of hands of the atheist Phd's to define the belief of Christians?

This is not consistent in my opinion.

1. The issue is not one of filters. We all see things through "filters." That how we are made and how we interpret things. A consistent filter within the Church is only desirable to the extent that the "filter" accurately perceives and identifies truth.

There are plenty of example of majorities with Christendom seeing things wrong. Galileo is an example. The inquisition is an example. The Salem witch trials are an example. Those are examples that unbelievers like to throw at us. It behooves us, I believe, to learn from the past and not repeat mistakes. Arguing for a particular filter to be in place for the purpose of promoting unanimity or unity is missing the point, The point is what is true and if it is true than a majority is desirable but completely unrelated as to whether something is true or not.

2. It's certainly possible to have wrong filters in place with regard to Scripture. I've changed my understanding on Scriptural issues over time when there is good reason to do so. Identifying one particular "filter" for another is only valuable to the degree that the new filter sees Scripture more clearly and comes close to what God intends to say to us.

3. Christians of pure heart and motives can honestly disagree on certain elements of the Scripture. Both cannot be right. One may be right and the other wrong or it is possible that both are wrong.

4. The claim by some that Science has proven Genesis wrong is a claim, not a fact. Reacting to it and asking for unity or unanimity in response to the claim is responding on a fallacious basis. There's no need to react to a false claim with anything other than a refutation of the claim and an assertion of that which is true.

5. If an atheist PhD makes a statement that the sky is blue it is no less true than when a Christian says the sky is blue.

6. Science is not the enemy. Science is the best methodology we have to approach and understand the physical world we live in. The God who gave us the Bible, is the same God we believe created the physical world. Science by its nature is a progressive and changing understanding of the universe around us that improves as we have more information and better theories to explain why things are as we observe them to be.

Respectfully Frank, part of what I observe in some of your writings appears to be a consistent misuse of the word theory.

A theory in science is very different than the common usage in everyday conversational English. When we talk about having a "theory" about something, we usually mean we have an untested or unproven idea as to why something is the way it is. In scientific terms, the appropriate word for that is not a theory, but rather a "hypothesis." A theory is science means that there is a significant amount of data acquired and that has been tested and replicated many times over and the theory proposed found to be consistent in its ability to not only explain why something happens the way it does or is the way it is, but is reasonably reliable to predict how something will work. Claiming that science or specifically, evolution, is just a theory, is a blatant misuse of the word and frankly in an increasingly educated and scientific world, THAT establishes a filter in the minds of many people who look at it, assume we know what we're talking about in terms of our own beliefs as a Christian and so they reason that Christians must be a bunch of uneducated or disingenuous boobs.

I'm not suggesting at all that we allow ourselves to be defined by atheists, or scientists, or for that matter, Biblical literalists who may misapply a certain method of interpretation to all passages uniformly and fail to recognize the different forms and exegetical and hermeneutical subtleties that exist.

The goal is truth.

If that is the goal we have to be prepared to reject bad science AND bad theology if that is what it takes to arrive at that truth. Popularity and/or unity or unanimity would certainly be preferable, but it is subordinate to truth.

OEC starts with the Scripture and the positions of OEC were present before the advent of modern science. It's a false dilemma and inaccurate to portray faith as diametically opposed or incompatable with science. Respectfully, I understand that you don't like to define yourself as YEC or OEC. In practice, you are quacking a little like a duck here, and that's fine. We welcome YEC proponents, OEC proponenents and Theisitc evolutionists. We're united in our belief that the Bible is true and we're working to understand it better.

I apologize if this come accross as personally directed at you. My intent is to deal with the issues.

Please consider if you may not be painting yourself into a corner by identifying filters on the one hand that you disagree with and can see clearly and may not at the same time be discounting your own filters and not aware of their presence in your own perspective.

I will explain my reasoning on why I believe the earth is ancient, using scripture to the best of my knowledge.

Gen1:1, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (KJV)

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

And the earth WAS without form, and void...

The word "was" should be the word "became". Using Strong's concordance, it is the Hebrew word hayah (1961)

hayah
haw-yaw
a primitive root (compare 'hava'' (1933)); to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary):--beacon, X altogether, be(-come), accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-)self, require, X use.

The verse should read, properly translated:

Gen 2:2, And the earth Became without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The earth became without form and void. It wasn't that way. It became that way.

Isa 45:18, For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

So God created the earth not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited. But what happened for the earth to become without form and void, if it was created not in vain and formed to be inhabited?

Jer 4:23, I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was(became) without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

24I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.

25I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.

26I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.

That first age was destroyed. The fossilized evidence on our planet proves that there was plentiful life and it all died.

When God creates man and woman, what does he tell them to do?

Gen 1:28, And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

If you notice God tells them to "Replenish" the earth. He does not tell them to "plenish" it. To replenish means to make full or complete again. The only reason God would tell them this, is if it was destroyed previous to their creation for them to replenish it. Otherwise, God would have told them to "plenish" it.

The word replenish is Strong's (4390) male`

male'
maw-lay'
or malae (Esth. 7:5) {maw-law'}; a primitive root, to fill or (intransitively) be full of, in a wide application (literally and figuratively):--accomplish, confirm, + consecrate, be at an end, be expired, be fenced, fill, fulfil, (be, become, X draw, give in, go) full(-ly, -ly set, tale), (over-)flow, fulness, furnish, gather (selves, together), presume, replenish, satisfy, set, space, take a (hand-)full, + have wholly.


I know that may seem too simple an explanation and I don't want to talk down to anyone but that's about the best explanation I can give as to why I believe the earth is ancient, using scripture.

Canuckster1127 ,

I disagree. If in fact a theory was found to match all data and no anomalies were found then I might have to agree, but that is not the case. I have placed numerous examples of "settled science" on this board where anamolies exist that negate the accepted theory. Science has been prone to vast errors in the past, what makes you think that today is any different. Those scientist were just as sure as you are today.

When have you ever heard of a petition signed by scientist telling PBS not to portray macroevolution as a fact? Never. Science is being used and scientist are fine with it. Yes, there are many fine scientist that are not agenda driven but many are.

This is just an argument and I/you can be as blunt as need be. I don't feel as though I am being attacked. I hope no one has taken what I say personal.

This a key issue and should be discussed openly. I think the people on this board can have this discussion. It may not settle anything but it does open people to other views out there. This is a key issue with people struggling to come to Christ. If we can't talk about it then we are lost.

Canuckster1127 wrote:

frankbaginski wrote: The question is not OEC or YEC. These are but examples. The question is do you view scripture through a filter. The jews in Jerusalem did not accept Christ because they had a preconception that He would be a leader that would free Israel from the Romans. They would not see Him as He was because of a filter. Are we doing the same thing with the Word to some degree? I don't think the effect is enough to change being a Christian but it is a serious issue. If we at least don't allow for this possiblity then we are blind. It is a well known fact that Christians do view various verses differently. Over time these differences have become greater. Why has this happened? Is this trend due to errors in scripture? If so then the whole Word is in question. The other day I watched a PBS show about evolution. It started with a picture of a Bible and said in the past people believed in the Old Testament, it stated that science has now shown that Genesis is wrong. They then went on to talk about monkeys. Do you not see this? Does this not concern you? At what point do Christians push back? Just what is a Christian? How do we define what we are? Do we now ask for a show of hands of the atheist Phd's to define the belief of Christians?

This is not consistent in my opinion.

1. The issue is not one of filters. We all see things through "filters." That how we are made and how we interpret things. A consistent filter within the Church is only desirable to the extent that the "filter" accurately perceives and identifies truth.

There are plenty of example of majorities with Christendom seeing things wrong. Galileo is an example. The inquisition is an example. The Salem witch trials are an example. Those are examples that unbelievers like to throw at us. It behooves us, I believe, to learn from the past and not repeat mistakes. Arguing for a particular filter to be in place for the purpose of promoting unanimity or unity is missing the point, The point is what is true and if it is true than a majority is desirable but completely unrelated as to whether something is true or not.

2. It's certainly possible to have wrong filters in place with regard to Scripture. I've changed my understanding on Scriptural issues over time when there is good reason to do so. Identifying one particular "filter" for another is only valuable to the degree that the new filter sees Scripture more clearly and comes close to what God intends to say to us.

3. Christians of pure heart and motives can honestly disagree on certain elements of the Scripture. Both cannot be right. One may be right and the other wrong or it is possible that both are wrong.

4. The claim by some that Science has proven Genesis wrong is a claim, not a fact. Reacting to it and asking for unity or unanimity in response to the claim is responding on a fallacious basis. There's no need to react to a false claim with anything other than a refutation of the claim and an assertion of that which is true.

5. If an atheist PhD makes a statement that the sky is blue it is no less true than when a Christian says the sky is blue.

6. Science is not the enemy. Science is the best methodology we have to approach and understand the physical world we live in. The God who gave us the Bible, is the same God we believe created the physical world. Science by its nature is a progressive and changing understanding of the universe around us that improves as we have more information and better theories to explain why things are as we observe them to be.

Respectfully Frank, part of what I observe in some of your writings appears to be a consistent misuse of the word theory.

A theory in science is very different than the common usage in everyday conversational English. When we talk about having a "theory" about something, we usually mean we have an untested or unproven idea as to why something is the way it is. In scientific terms, the appropriate word for that is not a theory, but rather a "hypothesis." A theory is science means that there is a significant amount of data acquired and that has been tested and replicated many times over and the theory proposed found to be consistent in its ability to not only explain why something happens the way it does or is the way it is, but is reasonably reliable to predict how something will work. Claiming that science or specifically, evolution, is just a theory, is a blatant misuse of the word and frankly in an increasingly educated and scientific world, THAT establishes a filter in the minds of many people who look at it, assume we know what we're talking about in terms of our own beliefs as a Christian and so they reason that Christians must be a bunch of uneducated or disingenuous boobs.

I'm not suggesting at all that we allow ourselves to be defined by atheists, or scientists, or for that matter, Biblical literalists who may misapply a certain method of interpretation to all passages uniformly and fail to recognize the different forms and exegetical and hermeneutical subtleties that exist.

The goal is truth.

If that is the goal we have to be prepared to reject bad science AND bad theology if that is what it takes to arrive at that truth. Popularity and/or unity or unanimity would certainly be preferable, but it is subordinate to truth.

OEC starts with the Scripture and the positions of OEC were present before the advent of modern science. It's a false dilemma and inaccurate to portray faith as diametically opposed or incompatable with science. Respectfully, I understand that you don't like to define yourself as YEC or OEC. In practice, you are quacking a little like a duck here, and that's fine. We welcome YEC proponents, OEC proponenents and Theisitc evolutionists. We're united in our belief that the Bible is true and we're working to understand it better.

I apologize if this come accross as personally directed at you. My intent is to deal with the issues.

Please consider if you may not be painting yourself into a corner by identifying filters on the one hand that you disagree with and can see clearly and may not at the same time be discounting your own filters and not aware of their presence in your own perspective.

Well said!!

All truth is God's truth

frankbaginski wrote:Canuckster1127 ,

I disagree. If in fact a theory was found to match all data and no anomalies were found then I might have to agree, but that is not the case. I have placed numerous examples of "settled science" on this board where anamolies exist that negate the accepted theory. Science has been prone to vast errors in the past, what makes you think that today is any different. Those scientist were just as sure as you are today.

When have you ever heard of a petition signed by scientist telling PBS not to portray macroevolution as a fact? Never. Science is being used and scientist are fine with it. Yes, there are many fine scientist that are not agenda driven but many are.

This is just an argument and I/you can be as blunt as need be. I don't feel as though I am being attached. I hope no one has taken what I say personal.

This a key issue and should be discussed openly. I think the people on this board can have this discussion. It may not settle anything but it does open people to other views out there. This is a key issue with people struggling to come to Christ. If we can't talk about it then we are lost.

Frank,

This is a strawman argument. Science, as I mentioned, by its nature does not claim absolute truth. Quite the opposite. Science is continually changing, adjusting and adapting as new information is found. It usually doesn't result in the complete discarding of prior theories, but rather small adjustments and tweaks as more becomes known or what is previously known is clarified.

Again, you're confusing a sector of scientists and how they misuse science with science itself and creating an unnecessary conflict.

Meterialistic philosophy that relies improperly upon science, is not science itself.

Bart

Katabole wrote:The word "science" is written only two times in the entire Bible.

Dan 1:4, Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans. (KJV)

1Tim 6:20, O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

This is what the word science means in the original Hebrew language utilized in Daniel, from Strong's concordance:

Strong's (4093) madda`
mad-daw'
or maddai {mad-dah'}; from 'yada`' (3045); intelligence or consciousness:--knowledge, science, thought.

This is what the word science means in the original Greek language, utilized in first Timothy from Strong's concordance:

Strong's (1108),gnosis
gno'-sis
from ginwskw - ginosko 1097; knowing (the act), i.e. (by implication) knowledge:--knowledge, science.

True science only goes to prove that the Word of God is true. As a kid, I grew up in a little town on the east coast of Canada in Newfoundland. I lived about 8 miles away from the oldest fossilized remains in the world, located at Mistaken Point, Newfoundland, which the Canadian government a number of years ago, made a national historic site. The fossils are on order of 500 million years old.

http://geol.queensu.ca/museum/exhibits/ ... en_pt.html

I'm sure like many of you, I find it humorous when you hear some Christians say that the the earth is 6000 years old, when fossilized remains prove it is ancient and the Bible itself declares that there was an age or eon before the one we presently live in, that scientists have broken down into various era's or epoch's of time.

The Pope may claim to speak for Christianity. For me, as a former Catholic, he speaks for his own church, unless someone wants to show me in scripture where that particular church was given the authority by Christ to represent all Christendom.

He may be a wise man and I do agree with him on some points. When he first became Pope, during one of his first speeches, he said that that the world was spiralling downwards towards a tyranny of relativism, which I agree with because that is the way the Bible says the social structure of humans will disintegrate into before the end of this age:

Relativism. Definition from the American heritage dictionary. A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.

Christians believe in absolute truth because Jesus says his Word is truth and he also adds I tell you the truth. For relativism to be a true concept, not even relativism can be true, because relativism states that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute. Not even relativism.

2Thess 2:3, Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first,

That falling away described there is what is known as the great apostacy or turning away from the truth of the Christian faith by many. Science is just one of the factors, just like other belief systems, that many people would rather believe than the truth of the Word.

Daniel was a prophet, highly esteemed by God. Yet it says in the above scripture he was cunning in understanding science.

Paul, stresses to Timothy, don't be opposed to science in the above scripture because as he says in the next verse:

1Tim 6:21, Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.

In other words, some professing Christians have made errors regarding science, concerning the faith.

Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein believed in God. Newton once said that all the great laws of physics he discovered were created by God for him to discover. Einstein once said this, which is my favorite quote by him:

As a child I received instruction, both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, though I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene...No one can read the Gospels, without feeling the very presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.

If geniuses like Newton and Einstein would believe in God and not deny that Jesus existed, why would those of lesser intellect not believe, considering that these two scientists were the two greatest scientific geniuses that the human race produced?

Jesus gives the answer:

Jn 3:19, And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20, For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

As time goes on, more and more people will turn away from the faith, some seduced by science. It is written.

Katabole,

Just a couple of points. The word "science" when it was written in the Original Inspired Scriptures and translated in the King James Bible did not have the same meaning that it does today to the average 21st century english speaking person. The context of the word pretty much would convert to human wisdom and/or human knowledge in general rather than just the specific realm today that we mean when we use the word science.

While it is certainly true and very evident that what we understand as science today is being used by many to promote a man-centered, humanistic and in some cases, atheistic world view, it doesn't follow that science itself as a methodology when viewed in proper relation to Scripture and incorporated in a Biblical world view, is what the scriptures here are speaking about.

We need to be very careful, I believe, to not confuse science in it's narrow definition as a methodology, with how some use it in the broader sense as an extension into materialistic philosophy.

Science in the narrow sense is a tool, and the best one we have to date for understanding the physical world around us. Many strong believers contributed to its advent, and many still work within it to good effect.

Canuckster1127 ,

What science should be and how it actually manifest itself are two different things. I do not believe I am stretching anything in my description of how science is viewed and used in our society today. There are many purest out their with the ability to separate whay we know from what we think we know. They are many more out there that don't talk in terms with limits, they say that the view of mainstream science is fact. They do not expose the incomplete nature of our data, they don't talk about anomalies in the data, and they bridge science into political action. This is what I am talking about.

If you had a herd of tigers you would place a fence around them to protect your children. The misuse of science is worst in that your childrens eternal destination is at risk. Am I the only one on this board who can see this?

frankbaginski wrote:Canuckster1127 ,

What science should be and how it actually manifest itself are two different things. I do not believe I am stretching anything in my description of how science is viewed and used in our society today. There are many purest out their with the ability to separate whay we know from what we think we know. They are many more out there that don't talk in terms with limits, they say that the view of mainstream science is fact. They do not expose the incomplete nature of our data, they don't talk about anomalies in the data, and they bridge science into political action. This is what I am talking about.

If you had a herd of tigers you would place a fence around them to protect your children. The misuse of science is worst in that your childrens eternal destination is at risk. Am I the only one on this board who can see this?

Who are "they"? And how do "they" represent the entire scientific community?

Canuckster1127 ,

Let us take global warming. According to mainstream media most scientist believe we are in the mist of global warming and the earth is doomed. We need to completely change everything we do and take all of the money from developed countries and ship it to the third world. Do you believe we are doomed? Do you want to buy beach front property here in Tucson? Give me a break.

The simple facts are over the history of the world temperature has always lead CO2. The outgassing of the warm oceans are what cause the CO2 to rise. This is junk science and although most of science is not junk it is used that way by others.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5023002/

Al Gore and others have said that the antartic is melting. Although they fail to mention that only one part is getting thinner, the rest of the ice is getting thicker. As it turns out the part that is getting thinner has a good reason. See link.

Denial is not a river in Eqypt.