Balancing one's faith in relation to science

  • Thread starter Thread starter spunjalebi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Some scientists may admit that but it sure doesn’t stop the following from appearing here on a regular basis:

Noah and the Ark? Surely, science tells us that did not literally happen as described.

Adam and Eve? Surely, science tells us they weren’t the only human beings or certainly not the parents of us all.

Genesis? Why it does include the phrase “and the evening and the morning was the second (third, etc.) day” which is why it falls flat. :rolleyes:

Jesus couldn’t have raised the dead, cleansed the lepers, or gave sight to to the blind. Simon, uh… science says so.

God bless,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
…Genesis? Why it does include the phrase “and the evening and the morning was the second (third, etc.) day”…
Click to expand...
I don’t see this as a debate from science, but rather a debate over literal or figurative language. With so many psalms, parables and other examples no one can rule out figurative language as being a possibility in any Bible text (e.g., Jesus is the Lamb of God, but He is not fluffly and white and running around on four hooves.)

Are the days 24-hour rotations of the earth? If so, how did days 1-3 get to be “days” when in day 4 the lights are set in the heavens to regulate the passing of time? How do we square our thoughts about time and the creation of time in Genesis, with Peter’s advice to those wondering about the end-times: “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day”?
 
Isaiah
Chapter 45
I form the light, and create the darkness, I make well-being and create woe; I, the LORD, do all these things. 8 5 Let justice descend, O heavens, like dew from above, like gentle rain let the skies drop it down. Let the earth open and salvation bud forth; let justice also spring up! I, the LORD, have created this. 9 6 Woe to him who contends with his Maker; a potsherd among potsherds of the earth! Dare the clay say to its modeler, “What are you doing?” or, “What you are making has no hands”? 10 Woe to him who asks a father, “What are you begetting?” or a woman, “What are you giving birth to?” 11 Thus says the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, his maker: You question me about my children, or prescribe the work of my hands for me! 12 and ** It was I who made the earth and created mankind upon it; It was my hands that stretched out the heavens; I gave the order to all their host.**

18 ** For thus says the LORD, The creator of the heavens, who is God, The designer and maker of the earth who established it, Not creating it to be a waste, but designing it to be lived in: I am the LORD, and there is no other.**
 
edwest2 said:
That is not a fact.

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1645453.ece

God bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
As I said in my previous thread, evolution is a banned topic in this forum. I have a great admiration B XVI and his pronouncements as Cardinal Ratzinger in “In the Beginning”, when he echoed St. Augustine’s Comment that the book of Genesis was not mean as a science text. Perhaps in that newpaper column that you cited the distinction between evolution, common descent, and the Darwinian model for evolution was not made clear, even though I’m sure that B XVI is aware of it.
 
JHow said:
I don’t see this as a debate from science, but rather a debate over literal or figurative language. With so many psalms, parables and other examples no one can rule out figurative language as being a possibility in any Bible text (e.g., Jesus is the Lamb of God, but He is not fluffly and white and running around on four hooves.)

Are the days 24-hour rotations of the earth? If so, how did days 1-3 get to be “days” when in day 4 the lights are set in the heavens to regulate the passing of time? How do we square our thoughts about time and the creation of time in Genesis, with Peter’s advice to those wondering about the end-times: “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day”?
Click to expand...
Didn’t you see the topic heading? Clearly, the OP wants to know where science intersects with claims made in the Bible. “no one can rule out”? Who is this no one? The Church has clearly defined teachings, including about claims made in Genesis. But instead of quoting Church teaching, more questions.

I think the ancient writer had clear reasons for including the phrase “and the evening and the morning” which cannot just be hand waved away.

If you want to use the thousand year statement, then that would put Creation in the 6-7,000 year category which the secular world actively fights against though the Church does allow it. And that will continue to be raised here, over and over.

God bless,
Ed
 
excubitor said:
Sorry to break it to you but evolution is not proven, it is merely regarded as the most probable scenario given the available data. That makes it a theory.
Click to expand...
To my knowledge, very little is provable outside of mathematics…

Yes, it is a theory, a scientific theory. Not the same as the colloquial use of the term “theory.” Which is what my point was.

Since the discussion of evolution is not allowed in this section of the forums, I will not get into a deeper discussion on this issue.
 
I have to agree with Sonoran Son. The common misunderstanding is to use “theory” when “hypothesis” is meant. While Neo-Darwinism has some interesting critics, it is accepted most part as a theory, not a hypothesis. That means that in accepted scientific circles it works and has proof adequate for use as a paradigm for explainting its scope of application. And let us remember that Darwin proposed his theory as a mechanizm for change, not for Creation. Even in his Origin of Species he acknowledges that in so many words, he himself being a God fearing man.
 
edwest2 said:
Some scientists may admit that but it sure doesn’t stop the following from appearing here on a regular basis:

Noah and the Ark? Surely, science tells us that did not literally happen as described.

Adam and Eve? Surely, science tells us they weren’t the only human beings or certainly not the parents of us all.

Genesis? Why it does include the phrase “and the evening and the morning was the second (third, etc.) day” which is why it falls flat. :rolleyes:

Jesus couldn’t have raised the dead, cleansed the lepers, or gave sight to to the blind. Simon, uh… science says so.

God bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
We believe that Jesus performed miracles, which is beyond the realms of science.

Science also posits that everyone originated from a common ancestor.

Just because Genesis talks about creation in terms of days does not necessitate that those days were necessarily our own days, correct? Because science can also show us that the days were a different length, along with the years.

Science does not necessarily refute Noah’s Ark, and there have been various hypothesis as to where the Ark could be-- ever heard of Mount Ararat?

And to be honest, it was science that helped me in my journey to Christianity. Science and archeology have provided much more to my faith than my family’s faith system did. Although not everything is just in accordance to the Bible word-for-word, the fact that evidence exists said a lot for me.

And btw, science also says that humans aren’t truly capable of being monogamous, yet thousands of generations have shown that to be the opposite. Science also shows that humans have a orbitofrontal cortex, which aids in a lot of good things:cool:

The problem is, when the Bible can’t explain something, and science explains it in a way that isn’t supported by the Bible, what happens?

And furthermore, this also begs the question of whether the Bible explains all of creation’s processes and has all the answers?
 
spunjalebi said:
We believe that Jesus performed miracles, which is beyond the realms of science.

Science also posits that everyone originated from a common ancestor.

Just because Genesis talks about creation in terms of days does not necessitate that those days were necessarily our own days, correct? Because science can also show us that the days were a different length, along with the years.

Science does not necessarily refute Noah’s Ark, and there have been various hypothesis as to where the Ark could be-- ever heard of Mount Ararat?

And to be honest, it was science that helped me in my journey to Christianity. Science and archeology have provided much more to my faith than my family’s faith system did. Although not everything is just in accordance to the Bible word-for-word, the fact that evidence exists said a lot for me.

And btw, science also says that humans aren’t truly capable of being monogamous, yet thousands of generations have shown that to be the opposite. Science also shows that humans have a orbitofrontal cortex, which aids in a lot of good things:cool:

The problem is, when the Bible can’t explain something, and science explains it in a way that isn’t supported by the Bible, what happens?

And furthermore, this also begs the question of whether the Bible explains all of creation’s processes and has all the answers?
Click to expand...
Consider:

Genesis 1 seems to be written from God’s perspective.

Now imagine a rolled up measuring tape 7 layers. That is how God may see it. Humans though are on the tape itself, and have to pass the graduations to look back.
 
**Abusing Science **

When confronted with their own religious doctrine, evolutionists are quick to deny any such thing. Evolution is based on religious claims, but after making these claims evolutionists insist their religious beliefs are entirely gratuitous. Their religious claims, evolutionists explain, are merely criticisms of design and creation. After all, we need to explain to the creationists why their ideas are not scientifically supported. The fact of evolution, on the other hand, is simply a scientific conclusion. But this evolutionary rendition is, as usual, at odds with the facts.

Darwin’s theory of evolution was motivated and justified by on-going theological and philosophical concerns. Though these concerns were spread across different continents, religions and centuries, there is a particular religious perspective at work. And naturally it is from this perspective that evolutionists argue. Their religious arguments are not merely sidebar rebukes of creation.

…Evolution is not about science. But when a mirror is held up and evolutionists are confronted with their own words, they suddenly cry foul. Like Captain Renault, they are shocked, shocked to find religion is going on in here. Evolutionists are their own judge.

more…a lot more…🙂
 
Al Mohler weighs in against BioLogos
Code: 
**William Dembski**
…
The BioLogos approach to the issue is now clear. They want to discredit evangelical objections to evolution and to convince the evangelical public that an acceptance of evolution is a means of furthering the gospel. They have leveled their guns at the Intelligent Design movement, at young earth creationism, and against virtually all resistance to the embrace of evolution. They claim that the embrace of evolution is necessary if evangelicalism is not to be intellectually marginalized in the larger culture. They have warned that a refusal to embrace evolution will doom evangelicalism to the status of an intellectual cult.

…
And it is also irrelevant to the central point at issue, which is whether Darwinian evolution, which is the science on which theistic evolutionists pin their hopes, is in fact false and demonstrably so. The ID community argues that it is. If we are right, the theistic evolution’s entire raison d’etre — reconciling Christian faith with Darwinian evolution — falls to pieces. It becomes the solution to a problem that no longer exists.
God bless Al Mohler for calling it the way it is.
 
Were they so strong as to actually call it an “intellectual” cult??? Is that accurate?
 
buffalo said:
Consider:

Genesis 1 seems to be written from God’s perspective.

Now imagine a rolled up measuring tape 7 layers. That is how God may see it. Humans though are on the tape itself, and have to pass the graduations to look back.
Click to expand...
That’s what I’m having difficulty with. Sorry I didn’t make my posting more directed.

And please, please, please let’s refrain from talking any further about evolution, since it’s banned. I really don’t want to get into trouble:(
 
spunjalebi said:
That’s what I’m having difficulty with. Sorry I didn’t make my posting more directed.

And please, please, please let’s refrain from talking any further about evolution, since it’s banned. I really don’t want to get into trouble:(
Click to expand...
I don’t know what you are having difficulty with. Ask some questions.
 
How are we in the tape, while God is viewing it as 7 layers folded?
 
spunjalebi said:
How are we in the tape, while God is viewing it as 7 layers folded?
Click to expand...
God is outside of time and created it. SO he views it from outside the frame. We are living in the timeline, in the frame. Does that help?
 
Yes that does. What happens when we are trying to understand science within the time frame, and the Bible as well? Does that mean our method of understanding it is short-sighted because we can’t see the entire thing?
 
spunjalebi said:
Yes that does. What happens when we are trying to understand science within the time frame, and the Bible as well? Does that mean our method of understanding it is short-sighted because we can’t see the entire thing?
Click to expand...
Yes. That goes back to my walking on the beach scenario. If we continue on with the scenario we can conclude several things. The person hopped, the waves washed away the right footprint, a deceiver was at work, etc. Which one is correct? So we continue walking and we come upon the guy that walked the beach and reveals to us how it happened. Revelation gives us this illumination in reasoning our observations. Materialists a priori rule it out and they have painted themselves in a corner.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top