Evidence for God from Science

frankbaginski wrote: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."

Just as you reason for 24-hour days in the Genesis creation account, so I reason for unspecified periods of time being the correct understanding. I really do not see the harm in discussing such matters. I also really do not know you to say you do or do not walk in the spirit, so it would be foolish of me to say such a thing either way. If we are in Christ, then to split some other hairs I am inclined to see it the other way around anyway, that is, the Holy Spirit has us. I do understand what you are getting at however, and it is most definitely Christ who matters and I never pretended any different.

Frank wrote: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).

What instructions were these on how we save souls? Please share as I have never been able to get this down pat.

I see we are to be a light to others and to give them the good news of Christ, however it is their choice whether they accept Christ or not. We do not save anyone.

There are also many barriers people have which prevent them from accepting Christ, both intellectual and emotional. Not to beat the issue further, but one in particular I see is that if the creation account is all wrong, then why should the spiritual matters be right? Valid question. Day-Age interpretation makes better sense, however even then, like you, I think it is best to target Christ as much as possible since He is central and what matters to us. Any secondary beliefs can be decided upon after Christ.

As for stakes, you make a stand where you feel you need to. I do not see you as holding to a more conservative view of Scripture nor do I see my "stake" is midway between your YEC belief and a Naturalist's or Neo-Darwinian evolutionary belief. YEC in the developed form we see today was not always held. It was not until Modernity began questioning and divorcing God from everything with an extreme rational skepticism, that I see YEC began really began to take form. YEC became especially populated in Scofield's reference Bible. I see YEC as a fideist movement which arose as a reaction to the extreme skepticism and anti-God rationalism of Modernity. The YEC position is therefore more of a reactionary and 20th century popularist movement, however this does not mean it is more "literal" or Scriptural or what have you. I simply offer this as my own evaluation of YEC. I will stand firm upon what I see as God's revealed truth in Scripture and nature regardless of where the stakes apparently lay.

Other than that, if you believe in Christ, then I accept you as a brother. There is no conflict there. However, it is good for Christians to reason through their other beliefs. Where you see division in difference, I just see people being people and we can still be united in our differences. As Christians I believe, as you do, that we are all united in Christ as His Church.

frankbaginski wrote: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.

So people should not admire God's creation and attempt to understand how it works? Such sentiments seem to fit my conclusion that YEC is just a reactionary movement. As for science, I do not know what you describe as science, but I see your understanding must be very different from what I see as science. Perhaps "science" is not the correct term you are using?

As I mentioned previously, many founding "fathers" of science were devout Christians (including Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, and Pascal). Refer to the article The Historic Alliance of Christianity and Science for more.

Kurieuo wrote:So people should not admire God's creation and attempt to understand how it works? Such sentiments seem to fit my conclusion that YEC is just a reactionary movement. As for science, I do not know what you describe as science, but I see your understanding must be very different from what I see as science. Perhaps "science" is not the correct term you are using?

Agreed... In fact, I believe the YEC movement is actually doing just the opposite of what it's intentions are. It is actually pushing people away from the Bible as a reliable text thus making it null and void. The more it is exerted, the more it actually thwarts people away.

Biblically speaking, the whole movement can easily be diffused by doing a simple word study on a few Hebrew words. So far, Christianity as a whole has failed to do this.. As for the science, it is mainly upheld by Christian scientists only. That alone should make anyone wonder...

Kurieuo,

You are of course correct, I cannot save anyone. But I can be a good witness and bring scripture to people who might not otherwise seek it. We have no power but are instructed to use the power of Christ. In His name we are to cast off demons. So acting in good faith the Holy Ghost works through us to accomplish It's goals. I just shortened this to we are to save souls.

I think what you mean Frank, is that we are to bring souls to Christ, correct?

Frank,

In response to your questions before it is becoming clearer to me that what you are responding to with regard to science is not hard science in itself but rather, what you see some scientists doing with it insofar as they remove God from the equation and seek by evolution to explain our presence.

I think you have some valid points.

I'd suggest you consider the following however.

1. As Kurieuo mentioned, science itself as a modern movement had and has many committed Christians from its past and present involved.

2. The surveys I have seen with regard to spiritual belief in scientists does indicate that overall, belief in God is lower than the general population, especially among those within the biological sciences. The rate is nearer the general population in the physical sciences and in fact I know of some physicists, astronomers etc. who have been drawn closer to God because the wonder and marvel of the universe has convinced them that only a Designer or God could produce such a marvel.

3. Young Earth Creationism in its present form, as Kurieou pointed out, does not resemble creationism among the early Church Fathers. A great deal of it is not a promotion of what draws directly from Scripture but rather a reaction to the materialism and evolutionary philisophy that is based in part in science which is extended beyond straight physical science and made into a philosophy which restricts reality to that which is physical. Science itself doesn't require that. It's quite workable to work in the field of science and to maintain faith in God and recognize that spiritual reality is present.

So I agree with your concerns to a certain extent. What is getting a reaction from me is your use of the word "science." I think you're using it to represent that whole materialistic field of belief that includes atheism, materialism, naturalism, positivism etc.

Most people, especially those with any working knowledge of the scientific method and fields of science are not going to understand what you are saying, because when they hear you say "science" it sounds to them that what you are is anti-intellectual or against the professions and use of science. It becomes very easy to write your views off.

Maybe you do mean to say this. If that's the case then I'll have to disagree with you and say that I don't believe that viewpoint is necessary or that it promotes the cause of Christ.

If you don't mean to say this, then, I would suggest if you mean atheism, materialism etc, then use those terms and don't just generally condemn science.

Is that clearer?

Bart

Canuckster1127,

you are correct. I am using the term science to describe the movement to go after faith in the Bible. It is very similiar to Islam. Where some people have become the mouthpiece for the whole group. If you notice the group in this case (Islam) does not condem the mouthpiece. If a Christian wanders off many voices will condem that action. I hear nothing from the scientific community to tell me that they all don't agree with the vocal part of their group. So science unless they differentiate themselves is a group. If that offens people thats just too bad. Maybe they should learn something from Christians. For this board I will use activist scientist for this group but in my heart I will be declaring the whole group at fault because of the silence.

Kurieuo,

A little off subject but you asked the question about being a witness.

Mat 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
Mat 5:12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

In this I believe is the real call to declare yourself a Christian. Using Christ as the example we could form a view that teaching the Gospel and teaching God's Word will lead to persecution. In deed we find this in most of the world today.

as for the spirit:

Act 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

I have had a vision which removed any doubt about a spiritual existance on earth. Very pleasant by the way.

Act 18:25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
Act 18:26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
Act 18:27 And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:
Act 18:28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, showing by the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

Here is the connection to the spirit, teaching, and the scriptures. This is what I think Christ was refering to in Mat 5:11

frankbaginski wrote:Canuckster1127,

you are correct. I am using the term science to describe the movement to go after faith in the Bible. It is very similiar to Islam. Where some people have become the mouthpiece for the whole group. If you notice the group in this case (Islam) does not condem the mouthpiece. If a Christian wanders off many voices will condem that action. I hear nothing from the scientific community to tell me that they all don't agree with the vocal part of their group. So science unless they differentiate themselves is a group. If that offens people thats just too bad. Maybe they should learn something from Christians. For this board I will use activist scientist for this group but in my heart I will be declaring the whole group at fault because of the silence.

Frank,

Look at the name of this board hosted by a scientist and you have someone from the scientific community doing something about it. Are you familiar with Francis Collins? Keith Miller? Hugh Ross? Fazale Rana? Rich Deem? Michael Behe? There's a huge list of vocal scientists, even some YEC'ers, who are credible in their field and not afraid to speak of their faith.

I, for one, would appreciate it if you would make that differentiation simply because it is more accurate. I share your concerns with trends and the quieting of voices.

Taking them all as a whole and writing them off is a grave mistake in my opinion.

I appreciate your response though. I appreciate your being open to what I've said and I hope you know I respect your opinion even when I don't agree with it.

Bart

frankbaginski wrote:Kurieuo,

A little off subject but you asked the question about being a witness.

Mat 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
Mat 5:12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

In this I believe is the real call to declare yourself a Christian. Using Christ as the example we could form a view that teaching the Gospel and teaching God's Word will lead to persecution. In deed we find this in most of the world today.

Frank... I'm confused. Are you equating YEC with martyrdom?

I believe in young-earth creationism b/c the Bible lays out a timeline of existence and for me the Bible, in it's original manuscripts, is flawless and raw truth. Follow the Link.
http://www.matthewmcgee.org/ottimlin.html

frankbaginski wrote:Kurieuo,

You are of course correct, I cannot save anyone. But I can be a good witness and bring scripture to people who might not otherwise seek it. We have no power but are instructed to use the power of Christ. In His name we are to cast off demons. So acting in good faith the Holy Ghost works through us to accomplish It's goals. I just shortened this to we are to save souls.

I knew what you were getting at, however the words as you said them were very wrong and give the wrong message to those who have not received Christ. I like people, especially Christians, to think about the actual words they say before just saying them. People make there own decisions, and as I previously put it, we are to be a light to others and to give them the good news of Christ. It is their decision whether they accept Christ or not. We do not save anyone.

frankbaginski wrote:Canuckster1127,

you are correct. I am using the term science to describe the movement to go after faith in the Bible. It is very similiar to Islam. Where some people have become the mouthpiece for the whole group. If you notice the group in this case (Islam) does not condem the mouthpiece. If a Christian wanders off many voices will condem that action. I hear nothing from the scientific community to tell me that they all don't agree with the vocal part of their group. So science unless they differentiate themselves is a group. If that offens people thats just too bad. Maybe they should learn something from Christians. For this board I will use activist scientist for this group but in my heart I will be declaring the whole group at fault because of the silence.

So you are quite happy to generalise? I will just point out here that it is quite fallacious to assume what is true of the whole is true of its parts and vice-versa. If God followed the same reasoning as you do here, then Noah and his sons and their wives would not have been spared. God very well of might not have even bothered trying to spare those who would receive Christ since the way is narrow. Thank God that He is nothing like you in this respect.

Now I am not sure that your generalisation of what science is really offends anyone here. Rather people see that such a generalisation is just plainly wrong and fallacious. It also shows, whether rightly or wrongly, that you are just being reactionary with your beliefs. As Canuckster pointed out, doing this makes it "very easy to write your views off" since you obviously do not care about examining the details and getting things right.

MarkyMark7 wrote:I believe in young-earth creationism b/c the Bible lays out a timeline of existence and for me the Bible, in it's original manuscripts, is flawless and raw truth. Follow the Link.
http://www.matthewmcgee.org/ottimlin.html

What of the known gaps in the genealogies? http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... fense.html (scroll down to the heading "Biblical genealogies require that Adam was created on or about 4004 B.C.")

Kurieuo that's something interesting I'd never been shown before. However, just b/c "ab" can mean grandfather and "ben" can mean grandson doesn't mean they do. When does "ab" mean (great) grandfather and when does "ben" mean (great) grandson? I know nothing about Hebrew, but wouldn't context clues indicate the exact meaning? Surely there is a separate word meaning grand son/father. If anyone knows Hebrew grammar rules well, please fill us in.
Also, according to Strong's Bible Concordance, "father" is the exact and literal definition of "ab" and the exact meaning of "ben" is "a son". In giving a geneology, doesn't it seem logical that son or father would have their literal meanings? Why would Moses or anybody other writer in the Old Testement Bible use "ab" or "ben" figuratively while giving a geneology, and if they did, would they not put some kind of emphasis on a figurative expression? If that article is true, then the Old Testement geneologies are not worth anything b/c at any moment Moses, for example, could use "ben" and mean son, grandson, subject, nation, quality, or condition (all those and "etc." are given in the concordance as figurative meanings of "ben"). I could say "head" and mean "leader" but if I was talking about anatomy I wouldn't.