Why Is There A Conflict Between Science and Christianity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Science and Christianity have never been in conflict; it has always been some scientists and Christianity that have that dispute. For an example, the Church rejected Galileo’s book, which included the idea of a spherical earth, not because of that scientific idea, but because of other elements contained in the same book (they had to either approve the whole book or not approve the whole book).

I hear what you’re saying about it seeming to be contradictory to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin and that Adam was the progenitor of all men, and yet believe in science, but the idea is that these two incidents are miracles—exceptions to the rule (science). Provided that the Christian God exists (which can be proven to be far more likely than not), it is certainly conceivable that He would not be bound by the rules of His creation, but only by His own unchanging character. Also, the Church does endorse microevolution (which includes the slow change of species over time by natural selection in favor of the preservation of life), but does not endorse macroevolution, for which there is not enough proof to delegate ecclesiastical backing.
 
Last edited:
po18guy said:
Re-pondering this , there never was a conflict, but at least two crucial factors have converged within the past 100 years or so:
  1. Bible alone Christianity has lead to the private interpretation of scripture and the discarding of Saint Paul’s traditions (among the other 12). From this have come the “young earth” creationists, who are adament that the Lord made the universe in six 24 hour days. Anti-intellectual it is.
  2. Atheists - increasingly militant - have entered the field of science. Certainly, a fraction of them seek to find that missing link and disprove the God of Israel. The mythical missing link being still MIA, they direct their efforts at disproving essentially everything the Church teaches. This has created a well-funded arena of pseudo-science.
In two or three generations, we have gone from the greatest scientists (Edwin Hubbell, Albert Einstein, Jesuit Fr. Georges Lemaître) working to find truth - to those who seek only to prove their agnostic/atheist agenda.

Before the flames light up, this does not apply generally - but generally the noisiest members of society have the most access to cameras, internet and written interviews.

And for that reason, the artifice that is the science-religion “conflict” is maintained. Like a hot-air balloon, it is constantly puffed up.
Click to expand...
I think that you are misrepresenting the problem. Item 2 is a response to item 1. As it is in regard to any dispute between those of faith and those without within this forum.
 
Epigenetics is compatible with evolution, in fact, it is closer to Lamarckian evolution. In my university’s biology class, my professors said that it is part of the last evolution theory.
 
LateCatholic said:
  1. Do you agree that science states virgin births are impossible? (yes)
Click to expand...
Science would say that it’s physically/biologically impossible, meaning only that it cannot occur naturally in humans. There is a difference. Science is not metaphysics; it does not argue for ontological necessity.
 
Last edited:
AlbMagno said:
Epigenetics is compatible with evolution, in fact, it is closer to Lamarckian evolution. In my university’s biology class, my professors said that it is part of the last evolution theory.
Click to expand...
Is it your position that Lamarckian now trumps Darwinism?
 
No problem. In its time, lamarcksim was challenged because its proposed evolutionary mechanisms didn’t hold up. Lamarck postulated that if animals “willed” to change to survive they could.

So if a short giraffe couldn’t eat and willed to have a longer neck, she could with time grow a longer neck and pass this trait to its descendents. People experimentated with this cutting the tail of rats and seeing if they could grow back and if their descendents would be born without tails (they didn’t).

As you see, the mechanism is totally different from darwinian natural selection. Natural selection, combined with mendelian genetics, where the most accepted elements incorporated in evolution theory.

But now we have discovered that under certain environmental factors, gene expression can change to a certain degree (thanks to introns it seems, it’s a matter of biochemistry), that’s what we call epigenetics. This is slightly similar to lamarckian principles.

And, unlike what Buffalo wants me to say, epigenetics can be integrated harmonically with natural selection and classical genetics.

EDIT: I forgot an important part of the experiment, now in italics.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
40.png
Wozza:
If that’s not possible then I don’t know what to suggest. Maybe…just work off the evidence?
Click to expand...
Ahhh, just work off what you see. See the problem?
Click to expand...
But you told me to sudy the archetype. That would be…evidence? I’ve asked you how we do this. How far back do we have to go to find it? 6,000 years. C’mon, you’ve told us what we need to do. Now tell us how we do it.
 
Wozza said:
But you told me to sudy the archetype. That would be…evidence? I’ve asked you how we do this. How far back do we have to go to find it? 6,000 years. C’mon, you’ve told us what we need to do. Now tell us how we do it.
Click to expand...
Still missed it…
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Wozza:
But you told me to sudy the archetype. That would be…evidence? I’ve asked you how we do this. How far back do we have to go to find it? 6,000 years. C’mon, you’ve told us what we need to do. Now tell us how we do it.
Click to expand...
Still missed it…
Click to expand...
So if we have no evidence…then what are we to study?
 

DARWINISM, JUDAISM AND THE CLASH BETWEEN SCIENCE AND RELIGION​

Writing that he was sad to give up on “a brilliant and beautiful scientific theory,” he said he had concluded that it couldn’t explain the big picture—not the fine-tuning of existing species, but the emergence of new ones.

In fact, a belief that’s unchallengeable has the characteristic of religious faith. That’s why Gelernter calls Darwinism a religion.

“They will destroy you if you challenge it,” he said. There was nothing approaching free speech on this topic. “It’s a sort of bitter, fundamental, angry, outraged, violent rejection, which comes nowhere near scientific or intellectual discussion.”

Gelernter’s conclusions about Darwinism have derived principally from his analysis of the statistical probability of the evolution of new species. Yet anyone who queries Darwinism is immediately labeled “anti-science” and accused of being a religious nut.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) MelaniePhillips.com – 6 Sep 19

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Darwinism, Judaism and the clash between science and religion |…​

Yale University professor of computer science David Gelernter has renounced his previous belief in Darwinian evolution as a ‘beautiful theory’.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top