Christians and Science

[KingJ]

So since I am new to the Christian lifestyle.. I have a few questions about the scientific side of life. I have loved science since before I even knew what science was. I have always enjoyed looking at the stars and learning about how our planet sustains life perfectly. I love looking at pictures of the universe, comets, other planets, etc. I love reading about the human body. It truly is incredible how our bodies are like a giant, very complex puzzle. Everything goes together perfectly and works together (big and very, very small) to keep us alive. There are no small jobs in our bodies or in the universe itself. I am by no means writing this to cause controversy, I am just needing some answers from my Christian friends about some things that, if answered, will strengthen my faith. Because as I said, I love science and I ALWAYS will. It is very important to me. And seeing that I am going into the medical field, I have taken numerous science courses ranging from Anatomy and Physiology to Chemistry to Microbiology.

I guess one of the things keeping me from growing in my faith is that I feel like some things might contradict themselves concerning science and religion. So I guess I will just dive right in and ask them. Please, don't be offended by what I ask. I am only asking for my own personal growth in my connection with the Lord. Some of these are just things that I have read that confuse me. So please correct me if where I have read these things are wrong. I am not claiming to be an expert in science or anything.. Just a curious newcomer to religion.. Haha

1. I have read that some creationists believe that the Earth is around 6,000 years old.. how do they believe that when there is scientific proof that the earth is older than that?

2. What do Christians think about dinosaurs? I have read some things online where some Christians say that dinos didn't even exist... that really grinds my gears considering we have physical proof of them..

3. Big Bang.. yes, I said those words on this site. I read a very interesting point not long ago somewhere (I can't remember where it was.. might have even been somewhere on this site) that the Big Bang could have been God. The Big Bang was described as an intense explosion of light. Could that have been God? "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." Genesis, people. Haha. Yeah, I'm just saying.. I believe in science. Could the Big Bang have been our God saying let there be light?

I am sure that I have more questions, but I am trying to keep it short and sweet this time around. So let's just call this "Liz's scientific questions round one." I am really sorry if I offended anyone by asking these things. But I really just want answers. If I have answers to these questions then it may help me move on to growing my faith. But I feel like I am at a road block as of right now just because I have read proof on some of these subjects and I have been exposed to science for my entire life. Of course. Please, one thing I do ask is that no one tell me that I have no faith and just to believe in God. I have faith. I am simply just asking some educated questions. Or trying to. Please, no negative or judgmental comments.

I appreciate your answers in advance and God bless you all. I hope you're all having a great Friday night. I will spend the rest of mine doing laundry and surfing the web.

-Liz

The devil and many god bashers like to pit science against Christianity. We cannot be naïve of this. What else has an atheist got? Prove the bible opposes scientific fact and you debunk the whole bible. Including those sections mentioning we will burn in hell for eternity. It gives them a nice thought to distract from reality.

Common sense should tell us that God gave us a brain to be used. God is not opposed to us using it. The devil is. That needs to sink in!!! As Christians we cannot be naïve of science being a tool the devil can use. Scripture warns us about false science in 1 Tim 6:20.

1. I think it is the Septuagint that suggests Adam is 7500 years or so ago. The other versions calculate to 6000 or so. This is the age of man. Not earth. There are a few scriptures that point to an old earth. But whichever we choose to believe regarding age of the earth, it is really not a big issue. Age of mankind, different story!

2. Dinosaurs are awesome creations. That's it. If we find a fossil we can marvel at it and imagine how great it was in its day. Not invent a new religion by claiming it is a possible ancestor.

3. The problem we should all have with the big bang is that it supports evolution. Evolution is the issue.

Many Christians want to accept evolution. But they have simply not fully considered / grasped its incompatibility with scripture.

 

[Apologia]

Many Christians want to accept evolution. But they have simply not fully considered / grasped its incompatibility with scripture.

This is a good point. One of the main reasons is people who call themselves followers of Christ use scientific data as their foundation and then look to see how scripture ties into it instead of using scripture as their foundation and using science to glorify God and better understand His creation. What's interesting is that those same people who deny God or can't see Him when using scientific data as their foundation don't understand that without the Biblical God, there wouldn't be science, nor an understanding of such.

 

[Apologia]

Somehow you misinterpreted part of my post, I never said anything about "accidents and coincidences" (a red herring btw).
If a physical system is "real", certain rational assumptions would be made about it, one being that the basic rules don't change.
Especially since that is exactly what we observe.

My post was not meant to be intentionally misleading with 'accidents and coincidences', it was meant to illustrate the secular view of uniformity in nature has no foundation to stand on; rationality is a Biblical concept, a characteristic of God we portray. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you are trying to prove your point from an empirical scientific standpoint. This view is still irrational as it still uses circular reasoning to prove its point.

Speaking of circles, that's what I feel we are moving around in at this point. My recommendation would be to research the preconditions of ineligibility; you will more than likely find this on an apologetics website. I would also recommend the book 'The Ultimate Proof of (Biblical) Creation: Resolving the Origins Debates" by Dr. Jason Lisle. His book has wonderful lessons on logic, logical fallacies and using them effectively to defend the Christian faith.

 

[Glomung]

"logical fallacies and using them effectively to defend the Christian faith."
Therein lies the problem, using fallacies to defend anything.
I realize that was unintended on your part, but funny nonetheless.

 

[Glomung]

My post was not meant to be intentionally misleading with 'accidents and coincidences', it was meant to illustrate the secular view of uniformity in nature has no foundation to stand on; rationality is a Biblical concept, a characteristic of God we portray. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you are trying to prove your point from an empirical scientific standpoint. This view is still irrational as it still uses circular reasoning to prove its point.

Speaking of circles, that's what I feel we are moving around in at this point. My recommendation would be to research the preconditions of ineligibility; you will more than likely find this on an apologetics website. I would also recommend the book 'The Ultimate Proof of (Biblical) Creation: Resolving the Origins Debates" by Dr. Jason Lisle. His book has wonderful lessons on logic, logical fallacies and using them effectively to defend the Christian faith.

Took a look through the reviews of the book, came away knowing it to be a pop theology text, not a science text. He seems to have a gift for baseless conclusions.
In point, one of his premises :
(1) If biblical creation were not true, we could not know anything. (2) We can know things (3) Therefore, biblical creation is true.
That is just garbage. Pure mindless garbage. Along the lines of (1) bananas are yellow (2) the sun is yellow (3) therefore the sun is bananas

 

[Apologia]

Took a look through the reviews of the book, came away knowing it to be a pop theology text, not a science text. He seems to have a gift for baseless conclusions.
In point, one of his premises :
(1) If biblical creation were not true, we could not know anything. (2) We can know things (3) Therefore, biblical creation is true.
That is just garbage. Pure mindless garbage. Along the lines of (1) bananas are yellow (2) the sun is yellow (3) therefore the sun is bananas

I know your better than what this comment portrays. What you just posted is the same problem nonbelievers have when trying to refute God's Word, they look at 'reviews' and a couple lines and take them out of context, they also refuse to dive deeper into what they actually mean. I'm curious as to how you use God's Word to defend our faith. If there is a better approach, please don't keep it to yourself, do share. Also, the author is a Bible believing astrophysicist, someone who has the credibility to be taken seriously. I'm not understanding the hostility. Is there something else you take issue with?

 

[Apologia]

Therein lies the problem, using fallacies to defend anything.

Interesting. So given your comment, it would be okay for someone to get away with saying "the universe is able to sustain itself because it created itself" (fallacy of begging the question). If we are able to get away with logical fallacies, there's no point in debating, as the 'truth' would only reflect such to each individual in the debate.

 

[Glomung]

I know your better than what this comment portrays. What you just posted is the same problem nonbelievers have when trying to refute God's Word, they look at 'reviews' and a couple lines and take them out of context, they also refuse to dive deeper into what they actually mean. I'm curious as to how you use God's Word to defend our faith. If there is a better approach, please don't keep it to yourself, do share. Also, the author is a Bible believing astrophysicist, someone who has the credibility to be taken seriously. I'm not understanding the hostility. Is there something else you take issue with?

If you intend to convince someone that the nature of reality is other than what they already believe, you need to have rational arguments that are NOT BASED ON YOUR OWN PRECONCIEVED NOTIONS. Saying the "Bible says so" is a complete and utter waste of everyone's time. If they had any faith in the Bible, you wouldn't be having the conversation in the first place.
If reason is you argument, then use reason, not opinion.
for example:
If the universe is a purely physical construct, there would never be any spiritual phenomena of any kind, ever.
Is that the world we see? Are there not odd, inexplicable things happening on a regular basis?
So, we have established that the universe is not purely physical.
So what do we know, or what can we deduce of the spiritual? There are dozens of different ways to go about this one, but the simplest is to examine all existing belief systems (it would be rational to assume that SOMEBODY has gotten it right) and throw out all those systems that are 1. self contradictory, 2. frivolous, 3. inconsistent. In other words, use inverse logic to find the truth, when all false notions are removed, all that remains must be true. The great difficulty with this method, is that the person doing the research must be intelligent, rational, and unbiased. That's a lot harder to find in humans than you would believe.
Another tack is a philosophical discussion of the "problem of evil". In a rational universe, evil would not exist. Yet it does. Why?
Why do apparently sane people do evil things on a regular basis? What are the characteristics of those few who do not do evil?

 

[Glomung]

Interesting. So given your comment, it would be okay for someone to get away with saying "the universe is able to sustain itself because it created itself" (fallacy of begging the question). If we are able to get away with logical fallacies, there's no point in debating, as the 'truth' would only reflect such to each individual in the debate.

That is a non sequitur. What you deduced has nothing to do with what I said, and it has several logical fallacies built in.
Nothing can "create itself". "Sustain itself" implies that it has an active principal, i.e. it is a living thing.
If the universe wasn't stable, we wouldn't be here. The fact that we are here proves that the "universe construct" is and has been stable (at least for a long while). What was before, we don't know. What may come after, we don't know. You can claim to know based on what is written in the Bible, but that is again an opinion, not based on any evidence or reason. If you are going to try to convince those whose IQ is better than tap water, you must do better.

 

[Apologia]

If you are going to try to convince those whose IQ is better than tap water, you must do better.

Your sarcasm is unappreciated and unwarranted; again I ask, have I offended you in some way, or is there an underlying issue you have yet addressed that's bothering you?

Even with all the evidence in the world you're not going to be able to 'convince' someone of God. We can't 'convince' through logic as people will still choose to be irrational even when faced with truth; we request rational accountability and explanations of one's worldview through logic. What the apologetic process is supposed to do is defend the faith; give an answer to our hope in Christ "with gentleness and reverence" (1 Peter 3:15); a good start and strategy being Proverbs 26:4-5.

 

[Glomung]

Your sarcasm is unappreciated and unwarranted; again I ask, have I offended you in some way, or is there an underlying issue you have yet addressed that's bothering you?

That is not sarcasm. I have no problem with you, I have a problem with those who claim to use reason as their argument and still do not support their notions with reason.

Even with all the evidence in the world you're not going to be able to 'convince' someone of God. We can't 'convince' through logic as people will still choose to be irrational even when faced with truth; we request rational accountability and explanations of one's worldview through logic. What the apologetic process is supposed to do is defend the faith; give an answer to our hope in Christ "with gentleness and reverence" (1 Peter 3:15); a good start and strategy being Proverbs 26:4-5.

You've changed the subject, we were not discussing apologetics, but the methods of convincing those of the nature of reality.

We will have to disagree. I have found that people WILL respond to a reasoned argument, despite your poor opinion of the reasoning ability of your fellow man. Pushing the "believe the Bible" trope on those who have no use for Bibles will achieve poor results. Why should they believe the Bible? Because you say so? Hardly a valid argument. Don't the Moslems, Buddhists, Mormons, and Hindus use the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT?

 

[Apologia]

Pushing the "believe the Bible" trope on those who have no use for Bibles will achieve poor results. Why should they believe the Bible? Because you say so? Hardly a valid argument. Don't the Moslems, Buddhists, Mormons, and Hindus use the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT?

Nor do I hold any ill will against you. Thank you for clarifying your statement. Sometimes what we type, unfortunately, is difficult to convey and compute.

I'm not sure I stated 'believe the bible because I said so' anywhere in my commentary; unfortunately some Christians will resort to this after becoming 'cornered' with things they don't know/understand. If I am wrong, please let me know.

I'm going to wrap this up as succinctly as I can. Speaking between you and I, followers of Christ, we know a non-believer's worldview is irrational by definition; Romans 1:18-23 explains the rationale behind this statement perfectly. When we are challenged to give an account for our hope in Christ (1 Peter 3:15), a response from the non-believer after our explanation could be something like 'oh, you Christian's are crazy. What you preach is just wrong. I don't believe in the Bible and I'm a moral person'. We as followers of Christ know they can show aspects of morality because we have an ultimate moral standard in our perfect God; we know the truth which includes knowing what is good/evil - right/wrong. A non-believer cannot account for their morals (good/bad, right/wrong) because without an ultimate standard, morality is subjective. Knowing this, we could answer something like, "how do you account for your morality? How do you know something is 'right' and something is 'wrong'?They may say that morality is dictated by social norms. Unfortunately, it is still subjective as each society has their own social norms which can make up different moral values, thus continuing to render morality subjective. This is just an example, I would rather not get into another commentary on morality.

The point I am trying to make is (and you pointed this out in a previous post) if others are requiring a rational response from us, we should be asking for a rational response in return; and yes, 'believe the Bible because I said so' is indeed irrational. If a Christian said this to a non-believer and the non-believer said 'evolution is fact, because I said so', we wouldn't have a right to get mad as we just did the very same thing; irrationality met with irrationality. If we are pointing out logical fallacies in their responses, we should expect the same when we make those mistakes. I hope this was able to offer some additional insight. If not, or if you have further questions, I invite you to shoot me a PM. I would be interested in hearing your most recent commentary back and forth with a non-believer who challenged your beliefs. Until next time, many blessings in Jesus name!

 

[Grant Melville]

Brethren... we can't use science or rationalism to convince anyone of the existence of God. Really, our only approach to unbelievers must be the gospel, because without faith it's impossible to please Him. Those are the divine terms. Are we going to let arguments about science and rationalism create divisions between us? I'm not saying that's the case, but I am concerned that we ought to watch out for that.