Evidence for God from Science

This is taken from a member of another board. I found it interesting and wanted to hear some thoughts on it.

The Church of England expressed deep concerns last night about the spread of creationist views as it prepared to unveil a website promoting the evolutionary views of Charles Darwin.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 744194.ece

Do the Anglicans realize that accepting Darwin means admitting that the whole Christian story is going to hell. Dawinks is quite right.

How so?

If evolution is true, and it is, then how can there have been a fall from grace? If there is no fall (Adam and Eve having more fun than they were allowed to have) then there is no redemption necessary. Jesus then died for nothing. You can be pretty sure then that he did not rise from the dead either.

Feel free to take discussion in any direction.


EDIT: Sorry I forgot to post some important quotes that give the post context

This is all very interesting. Does not the Church of England have some sort of doctrinal belief either for or against creationism? As an American I find the Church is quite liberal. I personally do not believe that either creation or evolution can be proved in the sense of a scientific way. There are numerous theories of evolution, and not all scientists agree on dates of fossils. If God indeed did create our universe, it is all a moot point anyway, and it appears as usual that it comes down to a question of faith.

"There are numerous theories of evolution, and not all scientists agree on dates of fossils."

Disagreement over fossil dates tend to be fairly trivial. For example, did the dinosaurs all die out 65 million years ago, or did some of them hang on until only 62 million years ago?

There is no real significant debate over the age of the fossils.

As for the "theories of evolution," these also tend to be variations of a theme. To what extent, for example, is "punctuated equilibriism correct?" It is in reality a fairly minor variation. No major theories of evolution posit that all life forms were created simultaneously a mere 6000 years ago.

Obviously I am not a scientist. I do not, however, belief in the infallibilty of the radioative dating of rocks. I do believe the earth is extremly old, but I don't believe that "life" took hold so far in advance of the earth's original existence. I don't believe scientist's can prove anything certain, per se, as they keep finding new evidence for various theories and changing their minds.

Obviously there is no scientific "definitive", no grand unified theory yet, and what I have observed is that scientists keep changing their theories as new evidence and data emerge. Einstein spent his whole life trying to figure it out. Science can prove nothing because it comes down to the theoretical, like their "big bang" theory that ends with the singularity with no explanation of how that came to be. God, maybe?

tabitha wrote:This is all very interesting. Does not the Church of England have some sort of doctrinal belief either for or against creationism?

I think they were just apologizing for not being open to the evidence presented in evolution and have taken a theistic evolutionists doctrine as a result.

I personally do not believe that either creation or evolution can be proved in the sense of a scientific way. There are numerous theories of evolution, and not all scientists agree on dates of fossils. If God indeed did create our universe, it is all a moot point anyway, and it appears as usual that it comes down to a question of faith.

So what does that make you?

Agnostic theist?

I'm still learning, I'm just a student.

tabitha wrote:Einstein spent his whole life trying to figure it out. Science can prove nothing because it comes down to the theoretical, like their "big bang" theory that ends with the singularity with no explanation of how that came to be. God, maybe?

I think there is a new theory that has recently came out called Null Physics. http://nullphysics.com/

It tries to explain a universe with an infinite regress and no singularity.

"It tries to explain a universe with an infinite regress and no singularity."

Jc, I went to this website, and it was more than my little brain could take in. I was like, this is science beyond my understanding. I tried to show the info on there to my hubby but he thinks I am quite mad to be trying to understand this stuff...can YOU try explain null physics? Must one have a background in theoretical physics?

I have studied some philosphy in college, which I found very interesting. I am far from knowlegable in science, but lucky me had a dad who taught flight engineering and was very knowledgable about applied physics. I learned alot from him. He was a reader and researched all kinds of theories, including some involving theoretical physics. Anyway, he taught me to question everything, hence my agnostic tendencies.

As far as the Anglican Church, If the stand they are taking now is Theist Evolution, that is fine with me. Where is the problem? If you believe in the end that God created everything, set the watch to motion, so to speak, what does it matter? I personally believe the Creation story is allegory, don't you? I just can't buy into the OT literally. Do you actually believe that Job and God had a conversation? That God killed women and children cause they were on the wrong side? I don't believe it myself, and I don't think it was intended that way. Interpreting the OT literally makes no sense to me. Even not interpreting it literally tends to make little sense. To me it is like the NT and the OT are completly incompatible. The God of the OT appears to be a raving madman at times, demanding horrible actions and also vengeful and cruel. The NT reveals a Loving God and also a Loving Savior, though there is still some talk of hell and damnation. Even that is up for interpretation. Have you figured it out yet?

In the Hebrew "midrash" interpretion we are not actually required to take it literally. Anyways, Richard Dawkins in my opinion is not an option, he does not take serious any spiritual reality. I believe according to the NT that the ultimate purpose of creation was love. Dawkins, the man, without spirituality is like a monkey or a tree. In his case, maybe closer to a tree. What happens to a tree when it dies, JC? That is what will happen to Dawkins based on his reasoning. True Atheism is just not an option for me as I see the spiritual reality in the world around me. Is not faith, hope and love more powerful than anything in this world? What else is there?

tabitha wrote: Jc, I went to this website, and it was more than my little brain could take in. I was like, this is science beyond my understanding. I tried to show the info on there to my hubby but he thinks I am quite mad to be trying to understand this stuff...can YOU try explain null physics? Must one have a background in theoretical physics?

I'm a student in high school and just started learning physics for the first time 3 weeks ago. I don't understand most if not all of the information that Null Physics tries to explain. All I understand is that it is a very new theory that tries to explain a universe with an infinite regress, thus trying to take out the "uncaused first cause argument." I may be completely wrong though so don't quote me on it.

tabitha wrote: As far as the Anglican Church, If the stand they are taking now is Theist Evolution, that is fine with me. Where is the problem? If you believe in the end that God created everything, set the watch to motion, so to speak, what does it matter?

Agreed, it really doesn't matter in the whole scope of things.

I'm still trying to figure out what I am (as far as how the Earth formed/got created). I am currently a YEC but in my honest opinion there is just too much evidence against the Earth being 6000 years old. But on the other hand I don't find the evidence or theology of theistic evolutionism at all convincing.

People here on this site have told me to look into progressive creationism and others have recommended a book written by a professor giving the Christian perspective on evolution.

tabitha wrote:What happens to a tree when it dies, JC?

I don't know, and neither do you.

tabitha wrote:True Atheism is just not an option for me as I see the spiritual reality in the world around me. Is not faith, hope and love more powerful than anything in this world? What else is there?

Agreed.

"What happens to a tree when it dies, JC?"

I think it is reasonable to believe that when a tree dies it is dead matter (although I realize that matter is supposedly indestructible). I don't believe that a tree has a higher consciousness or a soul. Do you? I know certain people believe that plants have souls, but I tend to go with that fact that plants have no higher consciousness or self-consciousness. Richard Dawkins feels the same about human beings. Certain scientists believe that what we think is the "soul" is actually just the human brain, or the part used for abstract reasoning. Now there's a thought.
But here's another one: Christian's (and other religion's) believe that human beings possess something they call a "soul" or spirit and it is immortal, but If we are waiting for scientists to confirm this we are in for a long wait. If we are waiting for scientists to confirm anything , we are in for a long wait. Scientists debate string theory, expanding contracting universes, infinite universes, etc., and meanwhile our little mortal lives are just ticking away, waiting to expire. If you ever happen to study Immanuel Kant "Critique of Pure Reason" you will see the achilles heel of science, or the science that emerged after the Enlightenment. I personally am going with my intuiton, which tells me that science is all right but all wrong. it is all right about the physical world around us, the world of our 5 senses. Anything beyond that belongs to the realm of philosophy and theology. Science will not provide a purpose to existence or explain why Christians believe that love is stronger than death, and has victory over it in the end. Do you follow me? I would go with my intuition on this. We human beings have little enough time to figure things out. You are in high school now, so you have plenty of time to figure it out. I personally feel there is another reality beyond our 4 dimensions, though I cannot "prove" it.

tabitha wrote: I think it is reasonable to believe that when a tree dies it is dead matter (although I realize that matter is supposedly indestructible). I don't believe that a tree has a higher consciousness or a soul. Do you?

No I don't believe that. But I wouldn't know.

tabitha wrote:If we are waiting for scientists to confirm anything , we are in for a long wait. Scientists debate string theory, expanding contracting universes, infinite universes, etc., and meanwhile our little mortal lives are just ticking away, waiting to expire.

Hopefully some questions will begin to be answered sometime soon with a new machine that was made...But I'm not holding my breath either.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ccess.html

There's a 2 minute video at the bottom explaining the experiment if you aren't familiar with what I'm talking about.

tabitha wrote:I personally am going with my intuiton, which tells me that science is all right but all wrong. it is all right about the physical world around us, the world of our 5 senses. Anything beyond that belongs to the realm of philosophy and theology.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but doesn't philosophy incorporate physics?

tabitha wrote:I personally feel there is another reality beyond our 4 dimensions, though I cannot "prove" it.

Though I recognize the idea that you can't know anything to be 100% fact...I too believe there is another reality beyond our 4 dimensions and I too can not prove it. I just follow the evidence and thus far Christianity has the most to offer on a theological level, philosophical level and internal level.

Also, I may be wrong...but I thought we had discovered more than just the 4 dimensions in math? 4th dimension = time? 5th dimension = dimension?
If you don't know it's ok, I'm just curios.

I don't believe that a tree has a higher consciousness or a soul. Do you?

Ah, but what about the Ents?!?!?

Yes, the Ents were cool.

zoegirl wrote:

I don't believe that a tree has a higher consciousness or a soul. Do you?

Ah, but what about the Ents?!?!?

But did they have a soul? Does simply being, having the ability to think and having the ability to throw giant rocks give you a soul?

Oh, I don't know, they had some pretty complex conversations, lasting, what, three or four days?!?

HOwver, it did take them that long to decide the HObbits weren't ok

We sure got off topic fast. Maybe we should start a LOTR topic, but how to make it fit the theme of Christianity? Wasn't C.S. Lewis friends with Tolkien?