Churches rejecting science altogether

[Ranklyfrank]

Recently I saw a photo of the marquee in front of the Beryl Baptist Church. It read:

REASON IS THE GREATEST ENEMY THAT FAITH HAS

This is a problematic situation. You see, it appears to be fine to accept a tenet of faith and reason from that as a premise, despite the obvious interpretative nature of statements lifted from the Bible and the entire Bible itself. And there are those who even impose or project upon the teachings of the Catholic Church that it necessarily is dogma that the Sun and the planets circle around Earth, not the Sun. And they have the “math” to prove it.

So reason doesn’t itself seem to be the issue. It is that while science deals strictly with the quantifiable and measurable, and is therefore incapable of admitting God as a Person into its equations, it must therefore be wrong. In other words, all of the mathematical and other scientific descriptions of dynamics, known and admitted by those sciences to be ad hoc by the very fact of continued exploration and experimentation, are discountable or even rejectable because they do not use as a first premise that the universe was created by a personal God.

In other words, it is a requirement of these folks to include the Whole in the deliberation of the surface considerations of small parts. Now while that may work as a metaphysical hypothesis or paradigm, it is not useful for direct measurement and practical application. So where are these home school kids left? They would appear to be in a position where all of their books, computers, clothes, dwellings, everything they surround themselves with that are the products of technology ought be rejected as Godless and heathen innovations spawned by Satan himself.

So the next time I see a naked mewling dunce staggering down the street from lack of food and drink, I will know what got them there and will feel no constraint to help them, because they are being faithful, and who would interfere with the work of God?

 

[cassini]

I’ve been a member of the Christian community on another site for ages now and some of their opinions on science have been increasingly worrying me. They seem to believe science to be this vicious evil and that all science is lies from the Devil, etc. This seems to come from a variety of churches, since there’s no predominant denomination among the community. Without any bias, and with no offence intended to those who do this, I have noticed many of them are home-schooled (how relevant this is is obviously debatable).

Maybe this is just because I’m a scientist by nature but surely teaching children this level of complete enmity and disregard for science is unhealthy and detrimental to them. I’ve heard people talk about how scientists are stupid and it’s all ridiculous. I’m all for teaching children a healthy skepticism and there are aspects of mainstream scientific opinion I am very skeptical about myself but there are also incredibly important teachings that science gives us.

To me it seems wrong for parents or pastors or whoever to be teaching children this but I’m curious to see what other people think.

Well PerefectT this depends on the term ‘science’ in the above observation. I suspect it is mainly confined to the realm of faith and science. Faith and science does not mean faith and technology, faith and medicine, faith and engineering, faith and computers, faith and chemestry etc., etc. No, what is meant by faith and science is restricted to those areas where science interfered with revelations, teachings and beliefs. These areas are mainly associated with origins, an area that science is incapable of establishing the truths of faith.

This came about since Galileo and Newton introduced the empirical method of science. The empirical method excludes all and any divine causes. Thus when its limits are exhausted it extrapolates according to theories based on purely natural reasoning. Areas where there is contradiction began with a heliocentric theory contradicting a geocentric revelation, moved on to an evolution of the cosmos rather than a presupposed ex nihilo created one in a certain order. Following this the same god-less science asserted a billion year old earth, rather than the 6,000 year old biblical earth. Following on this was evolutionism, where fish are supposed to have become human beings. Then Noah’s flood was dismissed, the ark became a myth turning the theology of Jesus being the new noah into a meaningless quip. Finally god-less science established the most unscientific story for the beginning called the Big Bang, a theory that presupposes space already existing.

So, who could blame these people and churches as seeing ‘science’ as the devil’s instrument to destroy faith. Millions have been convinced since 1700 by the scientific story of origins and have lost their faith. Note all such as Dawkins, Hawking, etc use science to denounce faith.

As regards Catholicism, well they are all now modernists so teach the flock that revelation and Genesis etc, can be made comply with the dictates of science. This revisionism was applied slowly to Catholic theology after the infamous Galilean U-turn against their predecessors under the name of ‘neo-scholasticism’ to make it all look Catholic. Accordingly, a new synthesis between ‘science’ and doctrine became progressively necessary. This meant abandoning traditional scholasticism, that is, theologically based wisdom, replacing it with ‘scientifically based’ reasoning. Today, depending on how good one is at this compromise with the faith of our Fathers one gets the title of ‘brilliant theologian.’ Thankfully other churches hold on to the truth. In time God will cleans the Catholic Church of Modernism and scientifically based theology will be discarded.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I’ve been a member of the Christian community on another site for ages now and some of their opinions on science have been increasingly worrying me. They seem to believe science to be this vicious evil and that all science is lies from the Devil, etc. This seems to come from a variety of churches, since there’s no predominant denomination among the community. Without any bias, and with no offence intended to those who do this, I have noticed many of them are home-schooled (how relevant this is is obviously debatable).

Maybe this is just because I’m a scientist by nature but surely teaching children this level of complete enmity and disregard for science is unhealthy and detrimental to them. I’ve heard people talk about how scientists are stupid and it’s all ridiculous. I’m all for teaching children a healthy skepticism and there are aspects of mainstream scientific opinion I am very skeptical about myself but there are also incredibly important teachings that science gives us.

To me it seems wrong for parents or pastors or whoever to be teaching children this but I’m curious to see what other people think.

“And she blinded me with science!”
Unlike technology, I believe “science” is hogwash. Where does technology come from? Surely, we do not have the innate wit to figure out how to manufacture simple boxes of toothpicks! Does anybody really believe that we were able to bring our society to where it is today based on our own VERY LIMITED innate wit? “Open your eyes, see the lies right in front of you!”

 

[Luke_K]

“And she blinded me with science!”
Unlike technology, I believe “science” is hogwash. Where does technology come from? Surely, we do not have the innate wit to figure out how to manufacture simple boxes of toothpicks! Does anybody really believe that we were able to bring our society to where it is today based on our own VERY LIMITED innate wit? “Open your eyes, see the lies right in front of you!”

I don’t understand what you mean here. The technology to make computers came from an application of the knowledge learned from the scientific method.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I don’t understand what you mean here. The technology to make computers came from an application of the knowledge learned from the scientific method.

Technology does not flow from earthly scientific method. Where does technology come from? I do not know! But it does not come from our very limited innate wit.

Designing a computer is actually easy compared to designing and building all the machines and apparatuses necessary to build computers!

Heck, we do not have the innate wit to manufacture the packaging computer chips come in!

Go ahead, take a close look around you and tell me which of it you could design if asked to do so. Heck, take a dozen college professors with you and see how far you get.

 

[Shredderbeam]

“And she blinded me with science!”
Unlike technology, I believe “science” is hogwash. Where does technology come from? Surely, we do not have the innate wit to figure out how to manufacture simple boxes of toothpicks! Does anybody really believe that we were able to bring our society to where it is today based on our own VERY LIMITED innate wit? “Open your eyes, see the lies right in front of you!”

What do you think science is?

 

[Robert_Sock]

What do you think science is?

Earthly science is not what we think it is!

How much innate wit do you have? (Please be humble!)

How many people do you know that have the innate wit to design and manufacture new, unique products in our world? I’ll bet that those who may be known simply copied technology from other manufactures.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Earthly science is not what we think it is!

How much innate wit do you have? (Please be humble!)

I’m asking how you define “science”.

I have a reasonable amount, I think.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I’m asking how you define “science”.

I have a reasonable amount, I think.

A quick definition: Science is that which comes from “science books,” universities and research and development in companies, corporations and foundations.

Do you have the innate wit to manufacture simple boxes of toothpicks? It’s much tougher than you think! Designing and manufacturing the machines needed to manufacture toothpicks is an awesome task!

 

[Shredderbeam]

A quick definition: Science is that which comes from “science books,” universities and research and development in companies, corporations and foundations.

Okay, then. What if I were to redefine it to mean “the systematic, objective study of reality”?
Robert Sock:

Do you have the innate wit to manufacture simple boxes of toothpicks? It’s much tougher than you think! Designing and manufacturing the machines needed to manufacture toothpicks is an awesome task!

I’m sure it is. Are you suggesting that nobody has this capability?

 

[Robert_Sock]

Okay, then. What if I were to redefine it to mean “the systematic, objective study of reality”?

I’m sure it is. Are you suggesting that nobody has this capability?

I would accept that definition.

I would say that whoever first developed the toothpick technology would needed to rely on trial and error taking most of one’s lifetime to perfect.

Imagine all the technology that needed to be developed in the past 120 years or so. Trial and error is not allowed when it comes to this type of technology due to time constraints. Things just don’t add up when analyzing this.

 

[Shredderbeam]

I would accept that definition.

All right.
Robert Sock:

I would say that whoever first developed the toothpick technology would needed to rely on trial and error taking most of one’s lifetime to perfect.

Imagine all the technology that needed to be developed in the past 120 years or so. Trial and error is not allowed when it comes to this type of technology due to time constraints. Things just don’t add up when analyzing this.

I don’t agree that he would have had to rely on trial and error. Building a new machine typically involves components that have already been invented. If you accept this account of the beginnings of the toothpick industry, you’ll see that that’s exactly what happened.

 

[kbachler]

It’s necessary to be specific about this. It needs to be pointed out that science, especially in the last 40 years, has gone from something that is simply taught to an Orthodoxy that people, including here, feel compelled to enforce. For some, science has reduced human beings to biological robots or a series of chemical reactions triggered by outside stimuli. The “we are just animals” mantra raises appropriate concern. Anti-theist groups make it a point to tell us: “Stop worrying [about God] and just enjoy life.” Or that human beings don’t require God to be ethical, moral or happy.

I think most Christians who like science have no trouble with becoming electrical engineers or mechanical engineers or doctors. The point is, science has decided that the human being can be reduced to a form of life that it cannot be compared to. Animals do not have human cognition but animal behavior is being used to justify some human behaviors today.

Peace,
Ed

Sorry, “science” does none of the things you claim above. What does are “philosophers” mistakingly misapplying and drawing conclusions from scientific knowledge.

Condemn the bad philosophy, not the good science.

 

[kbachler]

The overwelming majority of Christians who are hostile to science are fundamentalist Christians of Protestant denominations, most Catholics do fall fall in the “anti-science” camp. The motivation of these fundamentalists is to be able to read all of Genesis literally, with a 6000 year old earth and all the rest that comes with a literal reading.

I unfortunately must disagree. On this site I have found a large number of people who do not accept evolution, standard theories of the solar system or universe, or of time or medicine. While I have seen it in Protestant groups I have attended it is at least as strong here.

 

[kbachler]

I gather you are confusing true science with pseudo/phoney science,which we all must oppose and reject and especially scientists - I would suggest you read "True Science agrees with The Bible"by Malcolm Bowden,his website is well worth a visit - see for yourself the hoaxes,cons,frauds,fakes and conspiracy in the good name of true science - twinc

From what I can see, Bowden is in the category of pseudo/phoney (sic) science. I started laughing as soon as I saw “Enormous efforts have been made to discover fossils that could be claimed to be the “missing links” between Man and the apes.” - which isn’t a true statement at all, and then knocks apart this concept as though it disproves evolution. First, the statement has little to do with evolution, and second the way he tries to knock it apart shows an utter lack of knowledge on the topic. He then goes on to make a bunch of very uneducated comments about various hominid ancestors.

This is exactly the sort of thing that harms Christians.

 

[kbachler]

Faulty human reasoning of scientific findings is the issue.

Science by its own definition has a limited say about the universe and is provisional. Much of today’s science pronouncements are philosophical. This is the area where there is contention, rightly so.

Sounds to me that people are often attributing things to science when it has nothing to do with science at all.

I’m reminded when Einstein was presented with a Nazi letter, signed by 100 German scientists stating that relativity was not a correct theory.

Einstein was replied “If they were right, they would need only 1 signature. The theory is correct.” and so was Einstein.

 

[edwest2]

Sorry, “science” does none of the things you claim above. What does are “philosophers” mistakingly misapplying and drawing conclusions from scientific knowledge.

Condemn the bad philosophy, not the good science.

Philosophy is driving science now. Ask Richard Dawkins. People, when hearing an expert, think whatever he says is true. The biology textbook has become the basis of a belief system.

Peace,
Ed

 

[kbachler]

Well PerefectT this depends on the term ‘science’ in the above observation. I suspect it is mainly confined to the realm of faith and science. Faith and science does not mean faith and technology, faith and medicine, faith and engineering, faith and computers, faith and chemestry etc., etc. No, what is meant by faith and science is restricted to those areas where science interfered with revelations, teachings and beliefs. These areas are mainly associated with origins, an area that science is incapable of establishing the truths of faith.

This came about since Galileo and Newton introduced the empirical method of science. The empirical method excludes all and any divine causes.

This is an untrue statement. Science removes the NECESSITY of divine causes; but it doesn’t comment one was or the other on whether an initial cause is actually divine or not.

Its also untrue that this cam about starting with Newton and Galileo. Certainly, both advance science greatly, but this ignores many good Greek, Egyptian, and Islamic scientists and mathematicians, not to mention a number of European scientists and mathematicians other than Galileo and Newton. Why aren’t Aristotle, Archimedes and Euclid in your list?

Thus when its limits are exhausted it extrapolates according to theories based on purely natural reasoning.

This is also an incorrect statement. In many cases any such “extrapolation” is based on rigorous, provable, mathematical theories, which are significantly more powerful than “natural reasoning.”

Areas where there is contradiction began with a heliocentric theory contradicting a geocentric revelation,

Or one could go back to the Greeks/Egyptians who proved that the Earth was spherical.

BTW, geocentric revelation??

moved on to an evolution of the cosmos rather than a presupposed ex nihilo created one in a certain order.

Except of course, one does not eliminate the other, they could actually be the same thing, and science does not claim otherwise. There is some correlation if one treats the Creation story as an explanation to a scientifically devoid culture of how Creation happened over time.

Following this the same god-less science

Again, an incorrect characterization. God-neutral would be more appropriate.

asserted a billion year old earth,

wrong again. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

rather than the 6,000 year old biblical earth.

Biblical only if one misreads the Creation story, or makes assumptions for which there is no reason.

Following on this was evolutionism, where fish are supposed to have become human beings.

This is a false statement.

Note however, that the order of creation is comparable to the order of evolution.

Then Noah’s flood was dismissed,

Actually, there are a number of scientific theories on how there may have been a flood.

the ark became a myth turning the theology of Jesus being the new noah into a meaningless quip. Finally god-less science established the most unscientific story for the beginning called the Big Bang, a theory that presupposes space already existing.

This is a false statement. Big Bang does not presuppose that space already exists.

So, who could blame these people and churches as seeing ‘science’ as the devil’s instrument to destroy faith.

I can. Instead of following the commandment “Love God with all your heart, all your strength, all your soul and all your mind” people have chosen not to work to understand, and instead simply blame with no understanding.

Millions have been convinced since 1700 by the scientific story of origins and have lost their faith. Note all such as Dawkins, Hawking, etc use science to denounce faith.

And some scientists use science to highlight faith. Neither is a statement on science. It is a statement on scientists.

As regards Catholicism, well they are all now modernists so teach the flock that revelation and Genesis etc, can be made comply with the dictates of science.

Which is true. God does not break His moral laws. Why would you assume that He would break His physical laws?

This revisionism was applied slowly to Catholic theology after the infamous Galilean U-turn against their predecessors under the name of ‘neo-scholasticism’ to make it all look Catholic. Accordingly, a new synthesis between ‘science’ and doctrine became progressively necessary.

It is foolish to not incorporate new truths about God into what we know about God.

his meant abandoning traditional scholasticism, that is, theologically based wisdom, replacing it with ‘scientifically based’ reasoning.

This is an incorrect statement. Both sets of reasoning have their roots in Greeks, culminating in Aristotle. Its just refining and improving upon the logic and reasoning.

Today, depending on how good one is at this compromise with the faith of our Fathers one gets the title of ‘brilliant theologian.’ Thankfully other churches hold on to the truth. In time God will cleans the Catholic Church of Modernism and scientifically based theology will be discarded.

God will not violate His own laws to satisfy your self-centered perspective. If you were truly interested in God’s truth, then you wouldn’t denounce it when confronted with it.

 

[kbachler]

Philosophy is driving science now. Ask Richard Dawkins. People, when hearing an expert, think whatever he says is true. The biology textbook has become the basis of a belief system.

Peace,
Ed

Philosophy has always been a part of science, but does not drive science. Science is driven by what can be tested and observed. Hence, it is driven by truth.

All things are a matter of belief. I don’t see why you seem to think there is a contradiction between believing in evolution/biology and believing the Bible/Christ.

 

[edwest2]

Philosophy has always been a part of science, but does not drive science. Science is driven by what can be tested and observed. Hence, it is driven by truth.

All things are a matter of belief. I don’t see why you seem to think there is a contradiction between believing in evolution/biology and believing the Bible/Christ.

Here are some of the problems with science today:

1. Everyone reading this began life as a human embryo. Observable? Yes. This life can be aborted on demand.
2. Animal behavior is being used to justify some human behavior. Do animals have human cognition? No.

Peace,
Ed