In the beginning - science and religion

[tommiatkins]

planetsalive.com/?planet=Mars&tab=B

Geologists have come up with decades of research and evidence. Laboratry tests show how coal is formed, how plates shift, the pressure needed to create diamonds, the structure of crystals.

Since the world is only 6000 years old, of course all this evidence can be discarded. The overwhelming and measurably testable evidence is simply placed by God as a “test of beleif”. He placed Dinosaur bones in the rock to see if peoples faith was strong. He made air lighter than water to test our faith in the bible, and Gallilao the heretic spread doubt and confusion as satan planned, just as Dawkins , Darwin and millions of scientists do till this day.

 

[nuntym]

No.

No.

Strengthens. Look at all the cool stuff God made via evolution!

It’s proof of human’s ability to grossly misuse other humans’ theory…

Catholic.

We do not see a conflict between our religion and evolution. That is a Protestant Evangelical stance.

Dang, are we twins or something? Those would be my exact same answers!

 

[Ruthie]

Kalt asked me:
*How does this view account for the fossil record? Did God create species over billions of years? *

I’m not a “young earth” believer. So yes, I think God has created species over billions of years. I might re-think that if carbon dating, and the newer methods, are proved to be mistaken, but I’m not expecting that to happen.

*Do you think that God will create a new species again? In our lifetime?
*
I don’t see why not. He is still the Creator. In our lifetime? When and where is up to Him!

If some future dog breeder does produce a mutation that cannot interbreed with dogs, but can produce fertile offspring, then that might be proof of Darwin’s theory - but it would not disprove God as the Creator.

Ruthie

 

[kalt]

With all due respect, the study of geology is not that dissimilar to the study of evolution when it comes to speculating on the probable cause of things which are pretty much unknown to those putting forward their theories.

I mean, how do geologists know that the internal structure of the planet Mars is different from that of Earth?

Is there a reason why the geological structures of Mars and Earth should be so significantly different?

BTW, these are rhetorical questions and no one should feel compelled to answer them.

I think you wouldn’t accept the evidence if it were plunked down in front of you, anyway.

You seem to have a very strong distrust of science. Do you reject all science?

 

[kalt]

Kalt asked me:
*How does this view account for the fossil record? Did God create species over billions of years? *

I’m not a “young earth” believer. So yes, I think God has created species over billions of years. I might re-think that if carbon dating, and the newer methods, are proved to be mistaken, but I’m not expecting that to happen.

*Do you think that God will create a new species again? In our lifetime?
*
I don’t see why not. He is still the Creator. In our lifetime? When and where is up to Him!

If some future dog breeder does produce a mutation that cannot interbreed with dogs, but can produce fertile offspring, then that might be proof of Darwin’s theory - but it would not disprove God as the Creator.

Ruthie

Just to clarifiy. God created millions of species over billions of years?

 

[hamba2han]

You seem to have a very strong distrust of science. Do you reject all science?

I trust the kind of science which shows me evidence and then promulgates theories based on these adduced evidences.

When it comes to the study of the hydrological cycle in oceans however, what exactly is the evidence that has been been adduced to show that water cannot seep through fissures and cracks on the sea-floor?

The perfectly honest answer is that absolutely no such evidence has been adduced.

This theory goes something like this:

*Since the level of the sea is constant throughout recorded history, therefore this surely means that water cannot seep through fissures and cracks on the sea-floor.
*
In other words, it is scientific theory which is based purely on logic and does not provide evidence of any sort to support it.

I tend to be extremely wary of such scientific theory which is based on “logic” alone and no evidence.

 

[Galenorn]

First off, I think we are asking the wrong question entirely. The whole creation vs. evolution debate is NOT about science vs. religion, it is about two different interpretations of science.

Science is a tool, by itself it does nothing until wielded by people in an attempt to learn about the world around us. Tools do not give opinions, ask questions, make interpretations, or choose where it is used next. The old saying “garbage in, garbage out” applies. If the person using science is asking a biased question you get a biased answer.

Someone who believes in evolution or creation is looking to find proof for their beliefs, sometimes consciously, sometimes unconsciously.

Science by nature is limited entirely to observations and tests made in the present. Even with archeology we are working with the remnants of the past as they exist today or the recordings of the people who saw the events for themselves.

Both creation and evolution theories are limited by the fact that there were NO human observers during the bulk of the creation events. Both theories have unrepeated and unobserved events as the basis for the origin of the universe (creation week/big bang) that cannot be proved by science for the simple reason that is falls outside the limits of science since no observers were present. All we have is our interpretations of what remains today of the past.

Since neither can be proved directly, we are reduced to building a case for our theory of preference by piecing together fragments of evidence from what we see today. The outcome of combining these fragments is dependant on our beliefs.

In short, if you’re looking for evidence for creation or evolution you will find it, not because science says it’s true, but rather because we make the science say it is true.

 

[Galenorn]

Now as far as the question of how God performed his creation we have two main opposing views. (I am assuming here we all at least believe in God and not atheistic evolution)

1. Theistic evolution - gradual change over eons set in motion and guided by God.
2. Literal 7 day creation week with a short time (less than a year) in the Garden of Eden.

There are 3 main forms of theistic evolution as I have heard them.
a) Gap Theory - inserts an unrecorded period of time into the creation week where the world was created, destroyed and then recreated, to account for the assumption of the evolutionary fossil record. This simply cannot be supported scripturally.

b) Day = indefinite period - assumes that the creation week days are not literal based on the out of context use of the passage “to God a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years are like a day”. Few points to consider.
The first day of creation has the creation of light and its separation from dark, and then applies light and dark in defining a specific period of time, evening and morning the first day. Singular not plural, one day, the creation of the progression of time in the light dark cycle of a single day. Anything else is adding to the scriptural account.
The ordering of the creation events doesn’t permit long periods of time. Plants are created BEFORE the sun moon and stars. This is directly contrary to evolution which requires an old universe before the first life on earth formed.
No death before sin entered the world. Evolution is based on death and struggle directly opposed to the perfect world before the fall when death entered the world.

c) Indefinite period of time in the garden before the fall. Again, as just stated above, death entered after the fall leaving a contradiction with evolutionary premise.

Personally, I hold to the literal 7 day creation week. Could God have used evolution? Sure, God can do it however he wants. But he didn’t and told us so in the biblical account.

 

[Galenorn]

Now assuming a literal 7 day creation and the events after as given in the biblical account and also admitting the limitations of science (see parts 1 and 2), the next question is can a literal reading of Genesis be supported logically with observations of the world today. Short answer. YES!!!

A full list is far too long for a forum post but I want to point out a big one to get you thinking.

Carbon 14 dating has long been used to support old dates of fossils. However this dating method has some dramatic limitations.
Carbon 14 is created in the atmosphere when solar radiation interacts with nitrogen. It is then incorporated into living tissue at a ratio equivalent to that in the atmosphere. On death, no new C14 enters the tissue and the C14 in the tissue decays at a known rate.
The calculation to find the date of death depends on 4 values, current date, current C14 amount, date of death, and C14 at death, only the first 2 values are immediately known and by mathematics a formula with 2 unknowns is unsolvable. If independent dates for time of death can be found then it is possible to build up an estimation of past C14 levels that new samples can be compared to.
Knowing how C14 is created though brings up a few problems when you include the biblical account. Namely that the conditions of the pre-Noah’s Flood world are very different than our world today.
Creation day 2 describes a separation of the waters between earth and sky. This is theorized to be an atmospheric layer that collapsed at the time of Noah’s flood forming the basis of the 40 days of rain. This layer would serve as a protective barrier around the earth greatly reducing solar radiation (among other effects) and thus greatly reducing the C14 created in the atmosphere.
This means all plants and animals buried in the flood would show up as MUCH older than the true age when compared to a chart that ignores Noah’s flood as a historic event.

In other words, it if the biblical account is true as written, then carbon dating cannot be used as evidence against it since there is a logical explanation for the difference in dates.

For articles on scientific rebuttals of the evolutionary theory from a creationist viewpoint check out the Institute for Creation Research www.icr.org impact articles. icr.org/index.php?module=…rch&f_typeID=2

 

[tommiatkins]

Now as far as the question of how God performed his creation we have two main opposing views. (I am assuming here we all at least believe in God and not atheistic evolution)

1. Theistic evolution - gradual change over eons set in motion and guided by God.
2. Literal 7 day creation week with a short time (less than a year) in the Garden of Eden.

There are 3 main forms of theistic evolution as I have heard them.
a) Gap Theory - inserts an unrecorded period of time into the creation week where the world was created, destroyed and then recreated, to account for the assumption of the evolutionary fossil record. This simply cannot be supported scripturally.

b) Day = indefinite period - assumes that the creation week days are not literal based on the out of context use of the passage “to God a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years are like a day”. Few points to consider.
The first day of creation has the creation of light and its separation from dark, and then applies light and dark in defining a specific period of time, evening and morning the first day. Singular not plural, one day, the creation of the progression of time in the light dark cycle of a single day. Anything else is adding to the scriptural account.
The ordering of the creation events doesn’t permit long periods of time. Plants are created BEFORE the sun moon and stars. This is directly contrary to evolution which requires an old universe before the first life on earth formed.
No death before sin entered the world. Evolution is based on death and struggle directly opposed to the perfect world before the fall when death entered the world.

c) Indefinite period of time in the garden before the fall. Again, as just stated above, death entered after the fall leaving a contradiction with evolutionary premise.

Personally, I hold to the literal 7 day creation week. Could God have used evolution? Sure, God can do it however he wants. But he didn’t and told us so in the biblical account.

Magnificent job!

 

[kalt]

Do you realize that almost all scientist disagree with you, and that those who agree with you haven’t shown a scrap of evidence for creation?

It’s completely untrue that there is no proof of evolution. That is just something that creationists made up to discredit a field that they wrongly think undermines their religion.

First off, I think we are asking the wrong question entirely. The whole creation vs. evolution debate is NOT about science vs. religion, it is about two different interpretations of science.

Science is a tool, by itself it does nothing until wielded by people in an attempt to learn about the world around us. Tools do not give opinions, ask questions, make interpretations, or choose where it is used next. The old saying “garbage in, garbage out” applies. If the person using science is asking a biased question you get a biased answer.

Someone who believes in evolution or creation is looking to find proof for their beliefs, sometimes consciously, sometimes unconsciously.

Science by nature is limited entirely to observations and tests made in the present. Even with archeology we are working with the remnants of the past as they exist today or the recordings of the people who saw the events for themselves.

Both creation and evolution theories are limited by the fact that there were NO human observers during the bulk of the creation events. Both theories have unrepeated and unobserved events as the basis for the origin of the universe (creation week/big bang) that cannot be proved by science for the simple reason that is falls outside the limits of science since no observers were present. All we have is our interpretations of what remains today of the past.

Since neither can be proved directly, we are reduced to building a case for our theory of preference by piecing together fragments of evidence from what we see today. The outcome of combining these fragments is dependant on our beliefs.

In short, if you’re looking for evidence for creation or evolution you will find it, not because science says it’s true, but rather because we make the science say it is true.

 

[kalt]

There are plenty of people who believe in God and evolution. They don’t try to fit evolution into Genisis, since the Bible isn’t a science book.

Now as far as the question of how God performed his creation we have two main opposing views. (I am assuming here we all at least believe in God and not atheistic evolution)

1. Theistic evolution - gradual change over eons set in motion and guided by God.
2. Literal 7 day creation week with a short time (less than a year) in the Garden of Eden.

There are 3 main forms of theistic evolution as I have heard them.
a) Gap Theory - inserts an unrecorded period of time into the creation week where the world was created, destroyed and then recreated, to account for the assumption of the evolutionary fossil record. This simply cannot be supported scripturally.

b) Day = indefinite period - assumes that the creation week days are not literal based on the out of context use of the passage “to God a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years are like a day”. Few points to consider.
The first day of creation has the creation of light and its separation from dark, and then applies light and dark in defining a specific period of time, evening and morning the first day. Singular not plural, one day, the creation of the progression of time in the light dark cycle of a single day. Anything else is adding to the scriptural account.
The ordering of the creation events doesn’t permit long periods of time. Plants are created BEFORE the sun moon and stars. This is directly contrary to evolution which requires an old universe before the first life on earth formed.
No death before sin entered the world. Evolution is based on death and struggle directly opposed to the perfect world before the fall when death entered the world.

c) Indefinite period of time in the garden before the fall. Again, as just stated above, death entered after the fall leaving a contradiction with evolutionary premise.

Personally, I hold to the literal 7 day creation week. Could God have used evolution? Sure, God can do it however he wants. But he didn’t and told us so in the biblical account.

 

[kalt]

You’re using two unproven “events” from the Bible (which is not a science book or even a blow-by-blow literal account) to dismiss scientific evidence???

How is that proof of anything?

Now assuming a literal 7 day creation and the events after as given in the biblical account and also admitting the limitations of science (see parts 1 and 2), the next question is can a literal reading of Genesis be supported logically with observations of the world today. Short answer. YES!!!

A full list is far too long for a forum post but I want to point out a big one to get you thinking.

Carbon 14 dating has long been used to support old dates of fossils. However this dating method has some dramatic limitations.
Carbon 14 is created in the atmosphere when solar radiation interacts with nitrogen. It is then incorporated into living tissue at a ratio equivalent to that in the atmosphere. On death, no new C14 enters the tissue and the C14 in the tissue decays at a known rate.
The calculation to find the date of death depends on 4 values, current date, current C14 amount, date of death, and C14 at death, only the first 2 values are immediately known and by mathematics a formula with 2 unknowns is unsolvable. If independent dates for time of death can be found then it is possible to build up an estimation of past C14 levels that new samples can be compared to.
Knowing how C14 is created though brings up a few problems when you include the biblical account. Namely that the conditions of the pre-Noah’s Flood world are very different than our world today.
Creation day 2 describes a separation of the waters between earth and sky. This is theorized to be an atmospheric layer that collapsed at the time of Noah’s flood forming the basis of the 40 days of rain. This layer would serve as a protective barrier around the earth greatly reducing solar radiation (among other effects) and thus greatly reducing the C14 created in the atmosphere.
This means all plants and animals buried in the flood would show up as MUCH older than the true age when compared to a chart that ignores Noah’s flood as a historic event.

In other words, it if the biblical account is true as written, then carbon dating cannot be used as evidence against it since there is a logical explanation for the difference in dates.

For articles on scientific rebuttals of the evolutionary theory from a creationist viewpoint check out the Institute for Creation Research www.icr.org impact articles. icr.org/index.php?module=…rch&f_typeID=2

 

[kalt]

I trust the kind of science which shows me evidence and then promulgates theories based on these adduced evidences.

Then there must be lots of science that you reject. I doubt it, though, because you don’t see the rest of science as a threat to your interpretation of Genesis.

You will accept science that protects your religious views, and reject the rest. That’s hardly scientific.

The Bible can’t be wrong. Science has proven that the Earth is very old and that creation didn’t happen in 7 days.

If the Bible can’t be wrong, your interpretation must be. (Unless you choose to ignore the evidence.)

When it comes to the study of the hydrological cycle in oceans however, what exactly is the evidence that has been been adduced to show that water cannot seep through fissures and cracks on the sea-floor?

The perfectly honest answer is that absolutely no such evidence has been adduced.

This theory goes something like this:

*Since the level of the sea is constant throughout recorded history, therefore this surely means that water cannot seep through fissures and cracks on the sea-floor.
*
In other words, it is scientific theory which is based purely on logic and does not provide evidence of any sort to support it.

I tend to be extremely wary of such scientific theory which is based on “logic” alone and no evidence.

 

[Galenorn]

There are plenty of people who believe in God and evolution. They don’t try to fit evolution into Genesis, since the Bible isn’t a science book.

As a Catholic Christian my starting point for ALL discussion in ANY field has to be the inspired Word of God. Taking the Word of God as true, it would then make sense to also take as true the histories recorded in the Word of God. If these events happened AS RECORDED, then any true application of science can do nothing but confirm this. The problem is that a large part of the scientific community has rejected the Word of God before doing the science and thus rejects out of hand the evidence plainly in front of them that would support the biblical account.

As I stated in part one, science is based on the observation and testing of what we see today and the recorded observations of the past. The biblical account is a recording of the events of the past that have been preserved and passed down to us. As such, it IS fully useable and testable in the scientific field. For instance, Job has a wonderful description of dinosaurs though obviously not the word since the term dinosaur was coined long after the bible was compiled in its final form.

A close examination of the text of Genesis reveals a curious statement that gets repeated over and over “and these are the generations of…” that divides sections in the narrative of Genesis and end at the first verse in Exodus. One very reasonable explanation is that these are the points where one author signs off and the next begins. Starting with the generations of the heavens and earth after the creation week and progressing sequentially through Adam, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac and so on. Moses then was editor/compiler of Genesis not the author. As such, Genesis is a FIRST HAND account of the events after the creation week, and a second hand account given to Adam by God of the creation week with confirmation given in the Garden with the demonstration of his power in a second smaller scale creation event recorded in Genesis 2.

As a first hand account, Genesis is thus very much includable in any scientific search for origins.

 

[Galenorn]

Do you realize that almost all scientist disagree with you, and that those who agree with you haven’t shown a scrap of evidence for creation?

It’s completely untrue that there is no proof of evolution. That is just something that creationists made up to discredit a field that they wrongly think undermines their religion.

There is a strong movement of scientists that believe in literal creation as revealed in Genesis. If you doubt me look through the ICR website www.icr.org where there are lots of articles crunching data that clearly supports a young earth directly from the science. For instance, icr.org/article/2467/ shows that radioactive decay rates have NOT been constant in the past and in short “…implies that hundreds of millions of years of radioactive decay (at today’s rates) had to have occurred in a matter of a few days!”.

Creationists are not just making stuff up, in fact they are going to great lengths to base all their conclusions on hard scientific evidence. As a side note, the bulk of the science hoaxes in the last century have been from people trying to find evidence for evolution.

 

[tommiatkins]

Specificaly, theists cannot accept evolution.
Anyone who says they beleive in intelligent design and evolution will have to accept that God decided to produce man as one strand of a billion branched tree over a 7 billion year period.

Nope on a Saturday, he played mudpies and here we are. Much simpler.

 

[swariffin]

And as far as I know, there has never been a situation where science has disproved the teachings of Islam.

No way, Quran/Muhammad said that the bone of the human fetus was formed first, then the flesh. Science has proven that both the bones and the flesh of the fetus were formed concurrently.

 

[strngrnrth]

In the beginning, God created space and stuff. And stuff was without substance, and in chaos.
No light interacted with the existing space, and God said, “Let there be light”, and there was light.
And God separated the solids, liquids and gases so that liquids were trapped within solids, and it was good. And darkness and light were the first cycle, which took a day from the viewpoint of a nonexpanding observer, or roughly 7-8 billion years our time.
Over the next day, or 3.5-4 billion years to an expanding being, another cycle of darkness and light passed while God made earth, and living things in the water, flying things and plants without flowers or fruit.
Another, 1.75-2 billion years, and He made flowering and fruiting plants, creeping things that left the water for land, and a clear sky in which sun, stars and moon appeared as visible distinct lights, to measure out the day and night so diurnal and nocturnal creatures could live.
And another cycle passed in the next 400 million to 500 million years, in which mammals and great reptiles lived, and they also were good.
Another and the big mammals came about, following the death of most of the bigger reptiles.
Another and some mammals were getting ready to be human; God had guided their development carefully to build a large forebrain, clever hands and a slender body that could walk upright without losing balance and dignity. He selected a male, altered him slightly to set him apart by adding chemical components of the slime or earth, breathed His Essence into him so that the hominid would be mentally and spiritually like Him in some special ways, and left the new creature to take care of a beautifully fertile area God had set aside as an ideal human home. It was in North Africa or the Middle East.
Soon the social nature of the new creature, the human, became unwhole by deprivation of a similar co-worker. God made the human a similar co-worker by taking bone, flesh of the outer layers and flesh of the organs beginning and ending at the point of separation – the heart – and dividing the human in two, putting feminine traits in the second and leaving most of the masculinity inthe first. When Human awoke, he saw that he was incomplete. But looking up, he saw the other one. The one who was what he wasn’t, yet was also just like him. He rejoiced at the relatedness of the entire small human race, and we should continue to rejoice at our human relatedness.
Science bears this out except the separation of the first pair of humans and the involvement of God. There, science actually can’t resolve it. But these are the very subjects the Genesis account has in common with creation stories everywhere. Though science can’t testify on these issues, our hearts do.

 

[rossum]

I am Buddhist.

Do religion and evolution conflict?

Some groups within some religions do find a conflict, other groups within the same religions do not. There are evolutionary biologists who belong to all the major religions so there is no major religion that is completely incompatible with evolution.

Do you believe that Xianity and evolution are incompatible?

Evolution is incompatible with a literal interpretation of Genesis. Those forms of Christianity which require a literal interpretation of Genesis are incompatible with evolution. Those forms of Christianity with a less rigid interpretation of Genesis can be compatible,

Does accepting evolution weaken faith in God? Strengthen faith in God?

There is a vast amount of scientific evidence for an old earth and for evolution. By requiring belief in a young earth and direct creation all that evidence becomes evidence against God. That can cause people to have a crisis of faith, see Glenn Morton’s Personal Stories of Creation/Evolution for some examples of what this can do to people. If however, evolution is seen as the way God chose to create then all that scientific evidence becomes evidence for God and faith can be strengthened.

Social Darwinism–a gross misuse of evolution theory–is it a condemnation of the theory or proof of humans’ capacity for cruelty?

The latter. Humans use many things to try to justify cruelty to outgroups. Both religion and science have been misused in this way.

Does your religion take an official stance on evolution?

Buddhism takes no official stance on evolution, it is not part of the Path to enlightenment.

rossum