science is our attempt to explain the natural world around us, and theism is the study of the supernatural.
Theism is not a study. It's simply a belief in God. By definition, it makes no implications about science or the study of the natural world.
You know, the more I think about your question and see the responses on this board, the more is seems to me like there are people on both sides for which your question is valid.
There are those believers in God who believe that science is contrary to Him.
There are also those who don't believe in God who believe that science is contrary to Him, as some of the posters in this thread have demonstrated using statements like the one quoted above.
I believe science is just a way to observe what God has already created. Neither is contrary to the other. There's no problem for one in the existence of the other.
But lumping together "science and evolution" makes the situation different. If science truly implies evolution, as many of its proponents claim, one can hardly be surprised if someone who believes in God and a young earth (and believes in the aforementioned claim by evolutionists) no longer believes in science.
Originally posted by josephw I keep wondering why, if evolution is a viable science, it can't or doesn't address the issue of the origin of the universe. It seems to me that if one traces backward the evolutionary process one would have to explain how it all started.
Unless one believes it was all always here!
Hence your misunderstanding of evolution.
If atomic theory is viable science why doesn't it address the issue of the origin of the universe?
If cell theory is viable science why doesn't it address the issue of the origin of the universe?
If the theory of gravity is viable science why doesn't it address the issue of the origin of the universe?
The theory of evolution has it's own scope, just because it doesn't explain anything outside of that scope doesn't mean it isn't valid science.
This is also outside of the scope of this thread - I specifically said that this thread isn't supposed to be a "is evolution right" thread.
Originally posted by PsychoPawn Hence your misunderstanding of evolution.
If atomic theory is viable science why doesn't it address the issue of the origin of the universe?
If cell theory is viable science why doesn't it address the issue of the origin of the universe?
If the theory of gravity is viable science why doesn't it address the issue of the origin of the universe?
...[text shortened]... specifically said that this thread isn't supposed to be a "is evolution right" thread.
Originally posted by snowinscotland Surely the answer lies in the question, in that science is our attempt to explain the natural world around us, and theism is the study of the supernatural. The dichotomy lies therefore in the very nature of that schism.
The more science can explain, the more theism is squeezed, and so there is a natural animosity or tension between the two.
I t ...[text shortened]... ly with the situation, but I'm not sure many can actually rise above it, hence your last point.
I agree. What I find very interesting though is that scientists appear to be able to make those accommodations in their beliefs to not only include their belief in god, but also acknowledge the reality that surrounds them.
It's true that now that we know the world to be far more than 6000 years, the "young earth" belief just doesn't hold to reality. I find it very interesting how people change (or don't change) their views when they are confronted with these facts.
I've also always been interested on how people reconcile their beliefs and reality.
Originally posted by josephw I keep wondering why, if evolution is a viable science, it can't or doesn't address the issue of the origin of the universe. It seems to me that if one traces backward the evolutionary process one would have to explain how it all started.
I am curious. Do you honestly believe that that statement is genuine? I am sure that you have been corrected on that point before. Do you not understand the correction or do you simply not want to understand the correction or do you intentionally attempt to mislead?
Do you persist in criticizing science because you see it as a threat to your faith?
Do you realize that you often make false statements about science or is it the source of your information that is at fault?
Originally posted by PsychoPawn I agree. What I find very interesting though is that scientists appear to be able to make those accommodations in their beliefs to not only include their belief in god, but also acknowledge the reality that surrounds them.
It's true that now that we know the world to be far more than 6000 years, the "young earth" belief just doesn't hold to reality. I ...[text shortened]... ts.
I've also always been interested on how people reconcile their beliefs and reality.
I think many scientists who believe in God do so by effectively seperating the two seperate parts of their lives. Within their academic field, they have no use for God or gods, and they likewise do not subject their faith to the scrutiny with which they would for any scientific proposition.
Originally posted by twhitehead I am curious. Do you honestly believe that that statement is genuine? I am sure that you have been corrected on that point before. Do you not understand the correction or do you simply not want to understand the correction or do you intentionally attempt to mislead?
Do you persist in criticizing science because you see it as a threat to your faith?
Do y ...[text shortened]... en make false statements about science or is it the source of your information that is at fault?
I almost missed this.
I'm not criticizing science. Science is good. I simply don't trust the science behind evolution.
Is asking the question of the science of evolution to explain where it all began unreasonable?
If in fact all that exists is evolving then why can't one ask the question?
As a matter of fact I would like to know how science explains what happens when it traces back along the evolutionary path where it leads to. I'd like to know what those of you who believe in evolution have to say about this. This is an honest question. I'm not trying to be misleading at all.
Originally posted by josephw I almost missed this.
I'm not criticizing science. Science is good. I simply don't trust the science behind evolution.
Is asking the question of the science of evolution to explain where it all began unreasonable?
If in fact all that exists is evolving then why can't one ask the question?
As a matter of fact I would like to know how science ex ...[text shortened]... have to say about this. This is an honest question. I'm not trying to be misleading at all.
the point is that every theory has the scope it is defined to explain. For example Atomic theory doesn't say anything about gravity and germ thoery doesn't say anything about planetary orbits.
The theory of evolution is only intended to explain the diversity of life, not how life began. You are free to ask the question of how life began, but then you are going out of the scope that the theory of evolution covers.
The lack of an explanation of how life began is often pointed to by creationists as a flaw in the theory of evolution, but it isn't. It is as much a flaw in evolution as the fact that the theory of relativity doesn't have an explanation for the beginning of life is not a flaw in relativity.
Originally posted by PsychoPawn the point is that every theory has the scope it is defined to explain. For example Atomic theory doesn't say anything about gravity and germ thoery doesn't say anything about planetary orbits.
The theory of evolution is only intended to explain the diversity of life, not how life began. You are free to ask the question of how life began, but then yo ...[text shortened]... elativity doesn't have an explanation for the beginning of life is not a flaw in relativity.
Even though evolution doesn't explain how life began, it does postulate that higher life forms (us) evolved, ultimately, from single-celled organisms, right?
Originally posted by PinkFloyd Even though evolution doesn't explain how life began, it does postulate that higher life forms (us) evolved, ultimately, from single-celled organisms, right?
Originally posted by PinkFloyd Even though evolution doesn't explain how life began, it does postulate that higher life forms (us) evolved, ultimately, from single-celled organisms, right?
Originally posted by josephw I almost missed this.
I'm not criticizing science. Science is good. I simply don't trust the science behind evolution.
Is asking the question of the science of evolution to explain where it all began unreasonable?
If in fact all that exists is evolving then why can't one ask the question?
As a matter of fact I would like to know how science ex ...[text shortened]... have to say about this. This is an honest question. I'm not trying to be misleading at all.
Abiogenic theory is what you are looking for.
Personally, (and many other scientists believe this too) I believe that life evolved chemically from non-life. There really isn't anything all that special about life - it's just chemical reactions.
Originally posted by PsychoPawn I have seen/heard statistics that show that the majority of scientists do believe in god. It's also true that the vast majority of scientists accept the theory of evolution to be the best explanation of the evidence.
A number of the interviews of scientists that believe in god that I have seen have the scientist mentioning that they believe that evolut ...[text shortened]... e are plenty of those and that really doesn't have much bearing on the question I'm asking.
Religious evolutionists tend to be willing to dismiss parts of the Bible as being symbolic or something.
Accepting Science, evolution and believing in g...
21 May '08 23:22
Back to Top